Let’s talk spares availability, fleet commonality, customer (and passenger) resistance, as well as fuel burn and the unwillingness of western financial institutions to back Russian hardware (like it or lump it, that’s a fact).
Asking “which aircraft is better” is a futile question – what do you want it for? It is akin to asking “which is the better car, a Renault people mover or a Ferrari?” Everyone says “Ferrari”, and then the rider of “… and you need to move six kids to school every day in it” comes in, and the answer changes…
The OP has a habit of putting these strange questions on fora everywhere, and then either disregarding, or just ignoring the responses. I vote “troll”….
TA
Right, I’m gonna sound completely thick now, but can someone explain to me what all this means.
I know revenue is all the income that a company gets so I know that BA will get it from selling flights for example.
Is operating profit once all the deductions have been made e.g. wages, fuel bill etc?
Finally, what is an operating margin?
OK. Airline economics 101.
Revenue is indeed income, for airlines it comes in two varieties, direct and indirect. The former is what it gets from flying passengers and freight, the latter is what it gets from being an airline (eg, marketing incentives, grants, money made on aircraft/fuel/forex trading etc etc etc)
From profit, take your costs – firstly, taking off the marginal costs of putting passengers on the aircraft (so that is reservation system costs, pax handling etc etc), then direct costs (fuel, landing, parking, nav charges etc).
Operating profit is technically operating revenue minus operating costs, so should be direct revenue minus direct costs (so Willie’s remuneration shouldn’t figure in it, since he is an overhead), but the aircraft standing charges and corporate overheads can get in the mix. All depends on how the airline in question accounts (remember that to a certain degree, the airline decides on how it presents its numbers, so long as they are on a consistent assumption base year on year).
The margin is just an expression of operating profit as a percentage of operating revenue – eg, from BA’s 2006/07 results, revenue was £8,492m, operating profit £602m – a margin of 7.1%. (Note that BA use an overall figure for revenue, rather than the more precise direct revenue measure – this is not uncommon).
Hope this helps.
TA
I have to say, even as an ex-Airbus employee, I prefer the EK 777 to their A330s. Better IFE (ICE), and wider J class seats. (I’ve never been in the back of either…)
I can’t help but wonder if this says more about fuel (and other) costs or the viability of this sector of the market
The two are inextricably linked. If the market won’t bear the costs of the operation, then either the enterprise will fail, or serious cost-cutting is called for.
That there aircraft is MSN2821, which was very definately a 319 when Airbus built it…:D
Guilty as charged….:p
So, 777-200ER cannot take off at MTOW
Yes it can, by definition!
What about An-225 and Hughes Hercules wing structural weight?
The latter could barely pull its weight out of the water, and the former – with only one built – proves the point about lousy economics, perhaps?
I wouldn’t read too much into the Stanford study. It is a trend recognition, but it fails to take into account the practicalities of building larger and larger aircraft. There is a finite amount of stress that current materials can take, which increases with size, and what the study fails to note is how the weight of the aircraft itself starts to rise rapidly as we apporach the finite limit.
As I said earlier, we are about there in terms of limit, unless we get some major advances in material technology. Otherwise, as Schorsch noted, the aircraft will be carrying more and more of its own weight, with a lower and lower useful payload.
The A380 is in the end of the useful region
I think that’s probably correct. We’ll need to see some fairly large advances in materials technology before we get much larger. Whilst it is technically possible to build much larger aircraft now, the economics will go to hell in a handcart.
Another thought on a much earlier post – the AN225 doesn’t have to worry about the “box” – since it doesn’t tend to park at passenger terminals. Cargo aprons are typically much larger, since there is a lack there of limiting factors – eg, airbridges.
For a single deck airplane like Concorde, overwing exits is no problem, which is why Concorde has 29 m root chord
Eh? Concorde has a 29m chord since it was designed with a delta wing – I can’t imagine the issue of emergency exits was top of the agenda. In any case, putting doors either over a wing or away from a wing is not an issue. Compare an A320 with an A321 for a case in point.
As for the A380, I would be surprised if Airbus hadn’t considered a slide down onto the wing from the upper deck. I would be equally surprised if the legislation covered this point, since the A380 is the first full scale twin decker…
TA
Happy to stand corrected. I was at Airbus at the time, and saw a much simplified view of the thing…
Is this changeover likely to run over longer than expected
How long is a piece of string? 🙂
Do a google search on Airtran….
Ryanair are changing their reservation system from Navitaire OpenSkies to Navitaire NewSkies. This is a move which is being forced upon them by Navitaire, who are removing support from the previous, HP3000 based version of the software.
The data migration and integrity checking will take a good few days, hence the closedown. NS will let them introduce dynamic packaging and a few other toys as well.
Hope it goes better for them than it has for other operators…. 😎
A couple of fact checks….
The Air France incident took place at Mulhouse-Habsheim in France.
The Indian incident was not an Air India aircraft, but an Indian Airlines aircraft. The aircraft was instructed to descend at a given rate on the autopilot, the aircraft did that, and since no-one cancelled that command (CRM issues were implicated), the systems achieved the structural necessary impact with the ground, with the empirically fatal consequences…. the fact that the aircraft was fly-by-wire matters not a jot. I have flown a PA28 with an autopilot in which I could do exactly the same trick…
TA