747-8 vs A380: While Boeing and Airbus engage in a long-running and unseemly war of words about whether the 747-8I is more economical than the A380–and each accuse the other of playing fast and loose with the data–the only opinion we consider that counts comes from the airlines. Lufthansa says the A380 is more efficient than the 747-8I on a seat-mile basis. This is what LH said years ago, before either airplane was delivered. End of story.
ExIm deal reached: It looks like a deal has been reached with Republicans to support extending the authority of the ExIm Bank and to raise the ceiling to $140bn. As readers of this column know, we were highly critical of the Republicans for opposing this funding mechanism for American business. Boeing benefits greatly–ExIm has been called “Boeing’s bank–” and that’s OK. The ceiling hike isn’t really enough for the three years, however; ExIm funds stuff at about the rate of $35bn a year (about $12bn of which are Boeing airplanes).
Not quite, Dan Rather: We just finished reading Dan Rather’s new book, “Rather Outspoken,” which chronicles some of his career. In it, he cites his “Dan Rather Reports” effort on the Boeing 787 composites questions about crash-ability and flammability as one of his hard-hitting, post-CBS, HDNet award-winning examples of his after-life from CBS. Except that his conclusion in his book is wrong.
“Our report shed light on what might otherwise have been swept under the rug,” Rather writes, referring to the questions raised about composites and safety. “It triggered a recertification process and caused Boeing to reluctantly acknowledge potential problems with the CFRP fuselage.”
Well, we don’t know about that; Boeing almost never admits a mistake and we certainly don’t recall one admitted here. But what we do know is that Rather’s following conclusion is flat-out wrong.
“In the aftermath, Boeing delayed delivery–seven times….These were better, safer airliners because Boeing had finally taken more time before delivery.”
There can be no other conclusion than Rather is taking credit for Boeing delaying the 787 seven times as a result of his report. And anyone who followed the 787 debacle knows that the seven delays had little or even nothing to do with Rather’s report, but rather (pun intended) because of the supply chain, industrial problems, and just plain screwing up.
Dan Rather also believed that his George Bush Texas National Guard story was accurate, even after conclusive proof that superscript type was not available to the typewriters of the day.
To a certain end, Rather is right about the lack of a proper crash test (and obviously the flammability shortfals which I doubt anybody seriously involved in the field would argue).
If I remember well, they have not done the crash test of a full barrel. It was an incomplete one and in the case of composites that change everything wrt the results.
I seriously hope that we will not see one day a public inquiry following a sad episode with one of these 787. I really hope!
Dan Rather might not be an aerospace engineer, but Vince Weldon is. And a distinguished one at that.
We can take with a grain of salt anything that Dan Rather has to say about cutting edge technology. But when it comes to an expert of Weldon’s caliber we should pay attention and try to find out what it is he is trying to bring to our attention.
Historically Boeing has a reputation for building strong aircraft. Their airplanes have proven many times over that they could sustain severe damage and still make it home. But with the Dreamliner we are entering a new territory. The de Havilland engineers never expected their Comet to disintegrate in the sky like a ball of snow and dust after only a few flights.
It also took a few major catastrophes for the engineers of wide-body aircraft to realize that they needed to install blow-out panels to balance the pressure underneath the cabin floor in order to prevent its collapse in the event of an explosive decompression. The reason for that had already been brought forward by a Dutch engineer who was trying to explain that as the cabin floor was increasing in square-feet the cabin volume was increasing to the third power. For a wide-body aircraft that represented an extraordinary volume of air to evacuate in a very short period of time. But nobody listened.
And with the Dreamliner development it is possible that we are facing a scenario similar to the one that lead to the Challenger accident. There was enormous pressure on NASA and its various suppliers to get the Space Shuttle in the air as soon as possible. And they did not want to hear what a whistle blower at Morton-Thiokol had to say about the resilience of a 16′ o’ring exposed to cold temperatures. We could make a parallel here with Boeing and the FAA, and the enormous pressure they had, and still have, to get the thing in the air as soon as possible.
Could it be that Vince Weldon will end up being another Roger Boisjoly?
A380 versus B747-8I: LH compares for its own usage profile, which might but not needs to be representative of other airlines. Given the similar engine technology and the fact that the A380-800 is the shrinked version of the “real” A380, a close match of both aircraft appears reasonable. Again, seat-mile costs go much further than fuel burn and should not be mixed up.
Airbus never came up with the comparisons, Boeing uses an imaginary “typical’ 469 seat configuration just for these “per seat” comparisons. Real world 747-400s have 350-360 seats on average, the -8 is a few meters stretch..
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/2610589/
Anyway I think the real world capacity differences between the 747-8 and A380 are big enough to make a per seat efficiency comparison rather unimportant.
I think the a380 being delivered today are like the 747-100s being delivered in the early seventies. Stretches, engines, configurations will go in all directions in the next 20 yrs. I think RR new post XWB fan technology will be on the A380 towards the end of this decade.
http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getasset.aspx?itemid=42043 . GE won’t sit by and offer GE9X technology.
While I value the operator’s perspective, which usually is more fact-based than the OEM’s marketing pitch, I’d be careful to take the perspective of just one customer. More so if the assessment comes from the perimeter of people who may be under pressure defending their original purchase decision against mounting internal criticism.
There is just one hands on customer at the moment and LH is not known for any AlBaker like hyperbole. They are very German in that respect 😉
For a couple of years LH is known to expect about 10% better fuel economy in the A380.
But the A380 has higher capital cost than the 748 ( bought at a bargain price ).
Would be interesting to know what they will pay for the two “extra” A380 offered last year.
I take it the original purchase decision for the A380 is facing internal criticism at Lufthansa.
I believe Lufhansa was particularly interested in the 747-8I for its freight capabilities: both when carrying passengers and as an eventual conversion. If the 747 is better for freight that might imply the A380 is better for passengers.
A380s can’t carry much revenue cargo. It’s pax bags only.
Korean also bought both the 747-8i and A380. The A380 cabin is specified in a roomy way, 74 inch business class, 34 inch pitch in economy, duty free shop, bar, totaling just 407 seats.
If Korean puts the same product specifications consistently in their 747-8i, I wonder what the seat count will be.. 270 ? Unlikely though (I do not foresee a 9 abreast 747..) like Lufthansa they’ll probably aim their types at different markets, requiring different seat class mixes, making seat cost comparisons even less relevant.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lufthansa-targets-low-demand-economy-class-markets-with-747-8i-371455/
I don’t see how LH can come up with an accurate comparison CASM between the A-380 and B-747-830 in their own configueration of each. LH flies their A-380s at the max number of seats Airbus advertises in a 3 class configueration, 525 seats. Yet they have already said their B-747-830s will have only 365 seats, about 100 seats less than what Boeing advertises for a 3 class configueration, which is 467. That means LH will operate their new Jumbo with about 23% fewer seats than it is capable of carrying. Also, their B-747-830s are not in regular scheduled airline service, yet. Obviously the LH B-747-830 is going to be their premium product and the A-380-800 is not. This is not an apples to apples comparison even from one airline.
KE may well be another story as they only put 405 seats on their A-380s, and I don’t think they have said how many seats will be on their B-747-8Is. If it is around the same 23% reduced seats from the advertised 3 class capacity of the A-380, the B-747 will seat about 365. But if it is about a 13% reduction from the Boeing advertised 467 seats in 3 classes, it will carry about the same number of pax as their A-380, about 406 seats. That would be a more accurate comparison.
In the OEM advertised 3 class seating configueration for each of these massive airliners, the B-747-8I carries about 11% fewer seats than the A-388. Yet, Boeing claims a lower CASM. That does actually make sence as the B-747 is lighter in MTOW (by some 215,000 lbs) and has less thrust (per engine) than the A-380, and also exceeds the cargo capability compared to the WhaleJet. The B-747 also has a significantly lower max landing weight than the A-380, which means a significantly lower landing fee and parking fee from the airports these airplanes will fly to.
The B-747-8 will also save money when it is fueled to its max fuel load of 60,750 US gallons, which is almost 24,000 fewer gallons of fuel it takes to fill the A-380 at 84,600 US gallons.
So the real question remains unasked and unanswered. Which of these two airplanes makes the most revenue, and profit on a per mission bases for an airline that operates both types?
From Keesje’s ref:
“Lufthansa will use its new Boeing 747-8Is to tackle long-haul markets where demand is weak for economy class seats. This is because the stretched jumbo slots into the German carrier’s fleet beneath the Airbus A380, offering around 160 fewer economy seats but a comparable level of premium capacity.”
Boeing reference seating tends to be an overpromise ( or whatever you want to call it when few airlines will achieve the reference density. )
The same is very true for Airbus, Embraer, and Bombardier. Though on the CSeries Bombardier has been a bit more “realistic” in its passenger counts.
Boeing’s 469 seat 747-8 configuration has First class seat with a pitch of 60 inch (& no direct aisle access for many) and 7 abreast business class with 40-47 inch. And no frills like bars. Very common, around 1994. However no link to todays aircraft configurations.
For comparisons Boeing uses unrealistic dated seat densities, for artist impression spacey empty cabins. I’m not saying they are taking the public for a ride, but their assumptions are unique and do not represent anything close to reality. Time for an update I guess, but unlikely because of the impact apples to apples comparisons would have on Randy’s famous “per seat” comparisons. http://leehamnews.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/b747va380.jpg
Believing them isn’t wrong, it’s a choice.
But Airbus does so too..
Nope, the 525 for the A380 is far more realistic.. http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/asian-skies/A380%20Configs.jpg
Dan Rather…The only dude on earth willing to take responsibility for all of the Dreamliner delays. Someone needs to head on out to the wiki world and change the historical record on the 787; that it was, in fact, delayed 7 times due to Dan Rather.
I’m surprised Boeing management never pulled that rabbit out of the hat. Maybe they are saving it for the upcoming ramp-up delays? I envision McNerny on the Q4 2013 conference call making a statement to the effect of “We are unable to go to rate 10 this year because Dan Rather is lurking somewhere on the factory floor, or in the supply chain, and we cannot locate him until his next book is released and we are able to gain some insight as to where he is hiding”.
Sorry for the levity so early on a Monday morning.
At least Dan Rather won’t go down in history as the man who was emceeing the 787 Potemkin roll-out fiasco.
Ah, yes, but GE owns NBC and makes the engines for the 787. GE told Tom Brokaw, an employee of NBC, to host the roll-out.
I think that the reference artcicle from Max Kingsley-Jones is clear:
Lufthansa is hopeful that it will begin to receive an improved version of the Boeing 747-8I with performance closer to original expectations by the time its 11th aircraft arrives in around two years’ time.
The German airline has just taken delivery of the first of 20 General Electric GEnx-powered 747-8Is it has on order and is due to receive them at a rate of five a year through to 2015.
Speaking on 2 May at the delivery ceremony in Frankfurt, Carsten Spohr, chief executive of Lufthansa’s passenger division, said while the 747-8’s fuel burn had been lower than expected during the 1 May ferry flight from Seattle, performance is still below expectations. “It’s within the limits which we took into our calculation, but it’s not quite as good as Boeing and we were hoping,” he said.
“This is due to weight – resulting in higher fuel burn – and the engine, which can be further improved.”
Spohr says that fuel flow on the 747-8 is “more than 10%” lower than the 747-400 at the same weight, and its efficiency is close to the much larger A380 in Lufthansa’s fleet, in seat/mile cost terms: “We believe we will get very close – not quite [equal] – to the A380.”
Bombardier has not only been more realistic in its passenger counts, but they have also been more realistic for the passengers themselves. By offering a five-abreast configuration in a cabin only three inches narrower than a 737 one the passengers will benefit from an unprecedented level of comfort for this category. And since the average passenger size has been steadily increasing over the years it makes the CSeries an airplane of our time.
Lufthansa says “the A380 is more efficient than the 747-8I on a seat-mile basis.”
If that is the case, than why did LHy and Korea ever purchase the 747-8l?
No growth and NOT suited for conversion to cargo a/p, due to the long upper
deck. The reason must be the “great deal” B. gave them at program launch, as a
major int. airline, hoping for others to follow and to compensate them for B.
canceling the on board “Connection” program. NOT a smart decision by LH!
LH is outgoing in assembling a finely graduated over capacity and range fleet.
The 747-8i was a bargain and was a way to bring Boeing to come even with
some outstanding dept.
LH is averse to single supply for their fleet. They also have a freight business.
On the other hand ( as assumed from other posters ) I see no basis for
questioning the A380 purchase.
LH recently bought 2 extra for probably very reasonable money.
“…the only opinion we consider that counts comes from the airlines”. This is 100% correct and by the same token the 737Max will be 2% more efficient than the A320Neo. Now that boeing has introduced the split wing tips which LH technic did not take into account but which add up to 1.5% to fuel burn saving, we can then conclude that the 737Max will be (2% +1.5%)=3.5% more efficient than the A320Neo. This is very significant and anyone who will not buy the MAX is simply a fool.
In the Netherlands whistle blowers have a bad track record. Many end up being broke, isolated, jobless etc. Even if they were 100% right. Those that were right 95% get hunted for the 5% that can’t be proven..
Sad, unjustifiable and reality. (recently someone here did research on whistle blowers and published.)
How about those two F22 pilots refusing to fly on 60 minutes? For me it increases respect for those pilots. Apparently there’s more then follow the order / just do the job folks there, risking their career / income / standing up against superiors to address an issue. Kudos.
Because if you put the assumed demand on a route into a larger aircraft, the seat mile cost will explode. All these cost per seat mile assume a similar load factor (usually the load factor is assumed to be 100%). If an aircraft is more efficient per seat, but for any reasons many seats are unoccupied, the comparison is pointless.
Example given: I need to carry 100 people 500nm. Perfect fit for a B737-200. Take for the same a super-efficient B787-8. Burns more fuel carried pax, because 60% of the seats are empty. Extreme example, but shows where the odds are.
I wonder what the most likely prospects for the 747-8i are.
I think chances are higher when more then direct commercial value is part of the deal.
So maybe e.g. China Airlines, Air China, China Eastern, PAL, ElAl, Saudi Arabian, JAL, EVA Air, United, USAF, AI, PIA,
I can wait for Hollande to order his new custom built A-380VIP so he can claim he is putting Europeans back to work.
Or far less unlikely, Obama ordering -8s, because he has to (congress), pushing in a few badly needed DoD billions via the backdoor…
http://www.usa-hotel-guide.info/wp-content/uploads/fbeec_inPHxHNhJr7c.jpg
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obamas-support-for-export-industry-leads-to-clash-of-us-interests/2012/02/16/gIQAle2YJR_story.html
Touche` Or would it be ‘pas de touche` ?
I think the topic was already discussed to death in many aviation communities. The key point probably is: the death of the B747-8I is not the primarily the A380, it is the B777-300ER and its potential update.
I think this is correct
Partly correct with many airlines, not with others. QF, SQ, AF, Korean, Asiana, BA, China Southern, Malaysia, Thai, Virgin and probably more in the future ordered the bigger A380 to replace their 747-400s.
Some parts of the 747-8 are entirely new, increasing efficiency. Others not. E.g. the cockpit, fuselage and most of the systems. The First / Business products in front of a -8i can be made great. The hundreds in back are still 10 abreast, dry and noisy. Hard to change and not inline with the newer generations of aircraft operators buy. Airlines don’t ignore.
There are no B-747-8Is now, or planned to have 10 abreast seating in Y class. But many A-380s now have 11 abreast seating in Y. Airbus promised the A-380 would have amenities like bars, beauty salons, duty-free shops, and restaurants. None of that has materialized. Why don’t you mention the UU order for A-380s with plans for 840, yes 840 seats, all Y class. Talk about a cattlecar airline. UU calls their Y class customers “Classe Loisirs”. Doesn’t that translate into “Looser Class”? What a great marketing idea…….
BTW, no airline has ordered, nor has Airbus offered the ‘bigger’ A-380 to replace the B-744, or any other current airliner. In fact many airlines have decided to defer their current orders for the ‘little’ A-380, the A-388. These include some airlines you mentioned, like QF, AF, and VS.
KC, what on Earth are you talking about?
Lufthansa’s 747-8I do infact have a 10 abreast 3-4-3 seating configuration in ecinomy class.
http://www.nycaviation.com/photo-galleries/lufthansa-747-8-intercontinental-delivery/photo-galleries/image/lufthansa-747-8i-economy-class-photo-by-chris-sloanairchive-com-9/
Also, could you please provide a link to any airline that is flying the A380 which uses an 11 abreast seating configuration in economy class. I can’t seem to find one. 😉
Just one problem: the A380 and 748 assessments by LH are based on real world data of real flights. The NEO vs MAX numbers are still a matter of “my Powerpoint is better than your Powerpoint”.
LH clearly states that they use the 748 on routes with high business demand but low Y demand where the Y class will stay empty if an A380 is deployed. On routes where both the demand exists in J as well as Y, the A380 is a better choice. Again a real world example that “my plane is better than your plane” should be taken into the very specific context of the routes it is used on.
KCTB, old matras proved wrong.
“There are no B-747-8Is now, or planned to have 10 abreast seating in Y class. But many A-380s now have 11 abreast seating in Y. Airbus promised the A-380 would have amenities like bars, beauty salons, duty-free shops, and restaurants. None of that has materialized.”
All 747-8i (will) have 10 abeast in Y. All A380s (so far) have 10 abreast in Y (main deck 10, upperdeck 8, all significantly wider then 747 Y seats)
Many bars and frill around A380s. People have come to expect at a A380. Top of my head Korean (tax free too) , Emirates, Air France (gallery), Qantas (also Y) fly them as we speak. BA, Malaysia, Thai soon no doubt. Google around..
Even the UU order for A-380s with plans for 840 has 10 abreast maindeck and 8 abreast upperdeck, way wider seats then a 747-8i.
“BTW, no airline has ordered, nor has Airbus offered the ‘bigger’ A-380 to replace the B-744, or any other current airliner.”
Incorrect. SQ retired its last 747s last month. What replaced them? Same for QF, AF, Korean, Asiana, BA, China Southern, Malaysia, Thai, Virgin, all replacing older 747-400s.
We can all deny what we don’t want to see, passengers and airlines don’t. Sales prove.
Hr hm “many” ?, your nose is growing longer and longer TB:
The A380 is 11 abreast on the main deck when its in the full 840pax config.
Two have been sold, none built yet.
But those two have been sold for exactly that: cheap cattle class to reach an overseas dominion. ( and probably proof that statistically french are much less obese than americans 😉
The evacuation test seems to have been set up with 2-4-2 and 3-4-3 plus some aux seating for a total of 873 persons.
KCTB – All 747’s have been 10-abr since 1980 if not earlier. Very early deliveries were at an asymmetric 2-4-3 nine-abr but airlines soon discovered that 3-4-3 would fit and made them more money. DC-10’s and Tristars started at 2-4-2 eight abr but soon they all went to 2-5-2 nine-abr.
An unfortunate recent trend has been for 777’s [like AF and KLM] to be delivered at 3-4-3 ten-abr instead of 3-3-3. Same seat width as a 747 but narrower aisles. 787’s were supposed to be 8-abr 2-4-2 or 3-2-3 but don’t be surprised to see a lot of them will be at 3-3-3
I’m closing comments. The recent back-and-forth has become meaningless drivel.