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.

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.

I know of at least one European land that isn’t getting the share they were first lead to believe.

Then they have a claim, after all, wasn’t there a contract?

At any rate, JSF is an entirely different situation than the tanker deal….the bottom line is that “the same argument” cannot be applied to ALL military purchases, least of all the JSF.

So what if they are off in the technical comparison? The mainstream press normally messes up aviation technical stuff anyway, why should anyone expect any different?

The bottom lines, that the USAF is in absolute turmoil and that the U.S. in general has no money, are spot on. Thus, it gets printed by a respectible organization like Jane’s. I believe the entire JSF program is under severe threat.

One gets the impression that having told the USAF what tanker they need (the 330), certain posters on this board are now feeling spunky enough to tell the USAF what kind of refueling equipment it needs (hose and drogue).

Really, isn’t the USAF best qualified to specify what it refueling method it prefers, or must that have European approval also?

Just noticed this. Even allowing for the obvious hyperbole of, “only fly 3 times a week” (as disproved in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, etc.), it reflects a position that appears frequently, and does require some analysis.

The F-14D did require more mmh/fh than an F/A-18E/F. Anyone who denies that is engaging in some serious spin. However, there are a number of reasons for that.

First, because it had more sensors and capabilities and performed higher, there was more to maintain.

Second, there’s no getting around that even it was much improved reliability-wise over the (never intended for production) A, a lot of the systems were still older. Hydraulics take more than FBW. On the other hand, on a Tomcat there was a lot more that was repairable instead of replaceable. The catch with the Hornet (and other later generation aircraft.) is that a lot of the subcomponents are designed to be replaced, not repaired, much like a lot of our current electronics/appliances. This meant that if a Hornet goes down because of one of these components and you’re out of stock, you can’t bring the plane back until one arrives because the components are not designed to be fixed (this also shifts where the costs are recorded). Not a big deal in the civilian world, but a consideration in a world where they’re shooting at you. Still, those older systems do take more fixin’.

Third, and this is a big one in these comparisons. The F-14D production was canceled early by the Department of Defense (not the Navy). As a result, it was a “lame duck” through its service life. It was not “career-enhancing” to be associated too strongly with the Tomcat, and in fact the aircraft was in many ways treated with downright hostility at the top level, especially in comparison with the official “Wonderplane”, the Hornet. This is one oft he reasons why AIM-120 was never approved for the F-14 even though it was the first aircraft to fire it, and the already planned integration of a number of a/g weapons, including Harpoon, was canceled. The plane never enjoyed the priority for parts and maintenance crews that the SH did. The point being that although the Tomcat never would have matched the mmh/fh of the Hornet, if it had enjoyed the funding priority and resources of the Hornet, or even just what would be normal for an in-service aircraft, the disparity would be nowhere near as great.

That’s why comparing the 48 mmh/fh maintenance requirements of the F-14D at the end of its career with that of the SH don’t reflect a true picture of what the difference would have been had the -14D been supported as a normal aircraft. For the record, in the early ’90s when the -14D was getting normal support, the mmh/fh were 17 and trending downward.

The question should be whether or not the higher capabilities of the -14D worth the (apples to apples) higher mmh required to get that capability?

Thanks for that fine comment. One normally doesn’t see such unemotional analysis when reading a SH vs. Tomcat thread, which all SH threads seem to devolve into. At any rate, I hope it is proving instructive for our thread starter.

I would only add two comments:
1. “Hydraulics take more than FBW. ” This is a common mistake. I believe the servomechanisms on both planes are hydraulically powered. It is only the control/communication system for the servos that is either FBW or cables/bellcranks.

2. Something like 1/3 (give or take) of Tomcats were crashed. I believe that the SH will not only be much more reliable, but safer also (funny how there is always a correlation). There will be many lives and a ton of money saved because the SH is so much safer/more reliable.

The selection of the KC-30 (as the GAO ruling proved) was a complete screw up (no made in accordance with the solicitation). With the exception of there thus far being no accusations or proof of a Druyun/Sears-like event, it was easily as screwed up as the tanker lease was. You so convenietly seem to forget how, BECAUSE THE KC-30 SELECTION WAS SUCH A SCREW UP, “everyone” so lost confidence in the USAF’s ability to select a tanker that its authority to do so (already undermined) was taken away. And now, the very man who was responsible for making sure that NOTHING went wrong with the KC-X “competition” is THE man in control of the selection!

Actually, things are so screwed up in general, I’m not sure that ANY tankers will be procured. If McCain is elected, he has pledged to cut spending. That bodes poorly for the F-22 and new tankers. The trend has been towards cancelling programs for the last several years, the Navy has already taken a hit on their new destroyers and the Army has had several big programmes cancelled. If Obama gets elected, I can’t see his admin spending big defense dollars for any defense programs, they will concentrate on social programs. And the democrat congress has to appropriate money in any event, and the U.S. is broke.