dark light
Airliner World
Combat Aircraft
AeroPlane
Flypast
Airforces
Aviation
Pcpilot
Air

chornedsnorkack

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 316 through 330 (of 760 total)
1 2 3 … 21 22 23 … 49 50 51
  • Author
    Posts
  • June 18, 2009 at 10:03 am in reply to: All-coach A380 at last! #536575
    chornedsnorkack
    Participant

    Well considering the competition already on the route from the likes of Air France, I find the idea of an A380 operating the route very hard to believe!
    Not only that, but a reasonable portion of those pax will want to travel in C/F classes, why ignore them?

    Air France already ignores the passengers who want to travel in F, and carries an unreasonably small proportion of seats in C (14 out of 472 in 777-300ER, 17 out of 477 on 747-400). Air Austral mainline does likewise. And Corsair flies there ignoring C as well (only premium economy).

    Thus Air Austral might make the next move of flying an A380 with no premium class at all, and directing both C and premium economy passengers to fly their mainline…

    June 17, 2009 at 6:25 pm in reply to: All-coach A380 at last! #536772
    chornedsnorkack
    Participant

    Good lord! Air Austral are based at Reunion… a small french island in the indian ocean (I think). How on earth do they think there is enough demand from there for that?!

    Unless this new subsidary is going to be based elsewhere…. but still, I can’t see anywhere in the world where 800 passengers will want to get on one flight everyday, ALL FLYING ECONOMY. :confused:

    Reunion is a small island, but it has over 800 000 inhabitants. For whom France is the metropolis and Paris is the capital.

    With the inconvenience of being oceans away. Cramming the passengers into a single all-coach A380 every day promises to be the cheapest way to ferry them to their capital…

    June 17, 2009 at 5:31 pm in reply to: All-coach A380 at last! #536781
    chornedsnorkack
    Participant

    More specifics

    See:
    http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/06/17/328349/paris-2009-air-austral-picks-gp7200-to-power-a380s.html

    Air Austral picked Engine Alliance (as did Air France, for the matter). But the planes shall be flown by a new subsidiary, not mainline.

    The name and livery of the subsidiary remain to be seen. As do its service standards…

    June 17, 2009 at 3:13 pm in reply to: C Series is a Go for Lufthansa #536945
    chornedsnorkack
    Participant

    The aircraft would appear too small for their normal operating patterns. Unless they’re branching out into smaller aircraft like Air Berlin (who are reviewing ERJs and C-Series at the moment).

    The absolute cramped maximum of 737-300s (which Jet2 has) is said to be 149. The same absolute maximum for CS300 is 145. Not a big decrease.

    June 17, 2009 at 10:23 am in reply to: IFLC to cancel A380 order? #536986
    chornedsnorkack
    Participant

    If you travel from Hamburg to somewhere (outside Europe, and no charter trip), you’ll always go via Frankfurt, Munich, Paris, Amsterdam or London.
    Same applies to Berlin, less wealthy but close to 4 million people.

    Never via Kobenhavn?

    How would the seat capacity of one A380-800 and one A330-200 combined compare against 2x 747? And are airlines able to make a sensible interior design and ticket pricing such that rich passengers in First, Business, Premium Economy and full fare economy can fly in exact same comfort at either time they like, while discount economy only flies on the A380?

    June 16, 2009 at 9:12 pm in reply to: C Series is a Go for Lufthansa #537177
    chornedsnorkack
    Participant

    Due to fly in 2012

    See

    http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/06/16/328213/paris-air-show-bombardier-eyes-2012-cseries-first-flight-as-development-picks.html

    June 15, 2009 at 8:58 pm in reply to: Russian Civil Aviation #537590
    chornedsnorkack
    Participant

    Malev bought 15!

    Malev saw a Superjet fly in Paris and bought 15 frames:
    http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/06/15/328081/paris-air-show-superjet-100-takes-off-with-malev-order.html

    June 8, 2009 at 11:56 am in reply to: Russian Civil Aviation #539310
    chornedsnorkack
    Participant

    Further plans

    Now planning to fly the third frame in the end of this month:

    http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/06/08/327497/superjet-russias-revival-or-last-stand.html

    June 1, 2009 at 12:42 pm in reply to: Just how white elephant was 747? #543730
    chornedsnorkack
    Participant

    Airliners.net turns out to have been wrong.

    DC-8, from
    http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/dc8sec3.pdf

    has, on page 7, a diagram for DC-8-62.

    With 189 passengers and baggage, 38 745 pounds, the plane is fuel volume limited at 24 275 gallons, and has a range of about 5200 nm, fitting the 5210 nm quoted by airliners.net.

    But this is not the max payload. At max. payload of 51 745 pounds, the range is about 4500 nm.

    Regarding Boeing 747-100, from
    http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/7471sec3.pdf

    page 3, the diagram shows the range with 385 passengers and baggage as about 4800 nm. Matching what airliners.net has to say. 189 passengers and baggage, plus 358 000 pounds OEW, should come at a bit under 400 000 pound ZFW. Also roughly 5200 nm.

    Result: no extra range. A half empty 747-100 should have roughly the same range as a full DC-8-62 with the same passenger count.

    Now, the diagram uses fuel burn… but there are various assumptions about reserves included.

    June 1, 2009 at 8:56 am in reply to: Just how white elephant was 747? #544146
    chornedsnorkack
    Participant

    If you have a look at:
    http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=194

    then the range of DC-8-62 is quoted as 9620 km with maximum payload.

    Whereas at
    http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=97

    the range of 747-100 with 385 passengers and reserves (that is, less than maximum payload) is quoted as 9045 km.

    Sounds that 747-100 was not the longest range plane around then. Its only advantage was the large passenger capacity…

    May 30, 2009 at 11:48 am in reply to: Just how white elephant was 747? #544344
    chornedsnorkack
    Participant

    In 1970, 92 747-s were delivered. And then, in 1972, the number fell to 30, and in 1975 to 21. In spite of the availability of 747-200 by then.

    747 orderbook at EIS stood at 1978. Then 20 in 1970, 7 in 1971, 18 in 1972, 29 in 1973, 27 in 1974.

    May 30, 2009 at 11:31 am in reply to: Just how white elephant was 747? #544356
    chornedsnorkack
    Participant

    3) The economics of the 747 where much better. However, one does need to be able to fill the plane. And there is a lot of plane indeed! Many operators where unable to fill the plane and ran at a loss. Is that the fault of the plane? Of course not! The airlines knew what they where getting themselves into! It´s not as though it was a surprise the 747 was 3 times larger then anything else around.

    The appearance of 747 was soon followed by economic crisis, too.

    One air services agreement is said to have given an airline a certain number of flights per week – and specified that they were to be performed with DC-8.

    When the airline got 747-s, they requested permission to fly 747-s.

    This was allowed – but on condition that they were only allowed to sell as many tickets on 747 as DC-8 had had seats.

    The airline accepted it nevertheless.

    Some time after 747, DC-10 came out. Which also had low SFC engines. And then DC-10-30 came out.

    How did the range of DC-10-30 compare against DC-8-62? Or B747-100?

    May 29, 2009 at 3:57 pm in reply to: Airbus claims the A380 to be a success #544413
    chornedsnorkack
    Participant

    Just what did you smoke to come to that conclusion?

    Easy. These are the two biggest (high capacity, long range) planes in production.

    747-400 is out of production. 747-800 is not yet is service (unlike 380). Everything else is smaller.

    For an airline that wants to serve longhaul, high capacity routes – whether they are expanding or trying to replace 747-400 – the options are 777-300ER or A380-800. Therefore, it is very important precisely how much A380 is better than B777-300ER.

    May 29, 2009 at 1:20 pm in reply to: Airbus claims the A380 to be a success #544630
    chornedsnorkack
    Participant

    I think currently the B787 suffers more net order cancellations than the A380. not that the B787 is a bad aircraft, but we will see no significant orders in 2009 for long rangers at all.

    A380 had a firm order of 2 frames in February, from Korean Air. Since then, the orderbook has been 200.

    B747 orderbook is unchanged at the 20 frames of Lufthansa.

    In the first 5 months of 2009, how many if any new orders and how many cancellations has B777-300ER had? And what has the result been for all types of B787?

    May 29, 2009 at 11:36 am in reply to: Airbus claims the A380 to be a success #544644
    chornedsnorkack
    Participant

    The real competitor of A380-800 is B777-300ER.

    How do the costs per seat compare?

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 15 posts - 316 through 330 (of 760 total)
1 2 3 … 21 22 23 … 49 50 51