Airbus 380

September 21st, 2017 at 9:07:29 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 345
Posts: 12529
Quote: Pacomartin
When the A321-neo Long Range version comes out (4000 nm) it might be possible to replace some of the flights to Europe from Atlanta with narrow bodies.


I wonder what the absolute range limit is for a narrow body with at least 174 passengers.

Because if narrow bodies get to dominate the transatlantic market, that's pretty much it for the A380 outside of Emirates.
Fresh out of clues. Did you really expect anything?
September 21st, 2017 at 11:40:15 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 807
Posts: 9715
Quote: Nareed
I wonder what the absolute range limit is for a narrow body with at least 174 passengers.


I don't know if there is a simple answer to that. They are marketed with "still air" ranges, but headwinds are calculated for particular routes over a period of time. Sometimes jets have to be landed early to refuel if the winds are particularly bad. I remember 20 years ago when the flights from LAX to HKG used to land in TPE on bad days. But airlines try to be more conservative today as they view landing in the wrong airport as bad publicity.

The 757 was first delivered in 1980. The majority sold were 757-200 model which had a range of (3,915nmi / 7,250 km) . The 757-300 was far less popular with a range of 3,400nmi / 6295 km.

The longest current flights
3,395 nmi Boeing 757-200 Stockholm-Arlanda to New York-JFK Delta Air Lines (13% less than marketed still air range)
2,855 nmi Boeing 757-300 Houston-Intercontinental to Anchorage United Air Lines (16% less than marketed still air range)

Marketing Range B737 MAX
3,515 nmi MAX8
2,700 nmi MAX 200
3,515 nmi MAX9
3,215 nmi MAX10

3,500 nmi A320neo/A321neo
4,000 nmi A321neo Long Range variant (no deliveries so far)

The A321neo Long Range variant in real world conditions may not be useful from Atlanta to most destinations. But Delta will probably use them out of JFK. On the other hand JFK is very crowded with no easy way to build another runway without filling in the lagoon.

Delta may simply have to rely on it's huge fleet (82 planes) of aging (average age over 20 years) B767s. Longest current flights on any airlines are:
5,287 nmi B767-300ER Delta flight
3,900 nmi B767-400ER Delta flight

But I think the bottom line is Delta will have to procure some more widebodies in a few years besides the 24 A350s on order.

Despite Delta's very public fights with Emirates, one possibility is they could buy the A380s when they are 12 years old for an excellent price, and then operate them for 10-12 more years. Although some smaller airlines like Hawaiian may buy some for carrying large numbers of passengers from Honolulu to LAX, Emirates will eventually have to get rid of 100 of them.

Quote: Nareed
Because if narrow bodies get to dominate the transatlantic market, that's pretty much it for the A380 outside of Emirates.

I doubt they will ever carry more than 10% of the passengers even from the Northeast, and Mid-Atlantic.

There are many routes being flown by the A380 that are short enough to be flown by new generation of narrow body. These 7 routes are under 3350 nmi.

PARIS-NEW YORK Air France
PARIS-WASHINGTON DC Air France
LONDON-BOSTON British Airways
LONDON-WASHINGTON DC British Airways
FRANKFURT-NEW YORK Lufthansa
Most of the European destinations from Dubai could be reached by a narrow body.
September 21st, 2017 at 9:54:40 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 807
Posts: 9715
After the B747s are retired this year, only Air Canada will be flying high density configurations of all the North American airlines (all configurations over 300 seats)
Air Canada with 450 seats (10 across) vs American Airlines with 310 seats (8 across)

Air Canada:
Boeing 777-300ER 19 aircraft out of 172 | 400-450 seats (JAL puts 500 seats in these planes)

United Airlines:
Boeing 777-200 19 out of 750 aircraft | 364 seats
Boeing 777-300ER 14 out of 750 aircraft | 366 seats

American Airlines:
Boeing 777-300ER 20 out of 948 aircraft | 310 seats

Delta Airlines:
Airbus A350-900 2 out of 852 aircraft | 306 seats

Aeromexico
Boeing 787-8 9 aircraft | 243 seats
Boeing 787-9 5 aircraft (9 on order) | 274 seats

These aircraft are capable of carrying a lot more people in a single class high density configuration
787-8 359 seats
787-9 406 seats
787-10 440 seats
September 22nd, 2017 at 8:26:35 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 345
Posts: 12529
Quote: Pacomartin
I don't know if there is a simple answer to that.


I do. There isn't one :)

Part of the increase in range is due to an increase in efficiency. You can go further with the same fuel than you did previously. You can see this in cars as well.

But given the nature of jet fuel, known limitations on engine performance, usual wind conditions, etc. and the size of the plane with a max number of passengers and associated cargo (luggage, meals, etc.), I'm sure there's some theoretical maximum range for a narrow body, inside an interval that goes from full-force headwinds to full-force tailwinds, and form zero to a full load of weight, etc. I suppose it would be a matrix of sorts. i don't know if someone has done it.

But suppose over the next 25 years there's a chance that a narrow body, let's call it the ABCS537, could fly nonstop with a full load from LAX to LHR. Wouldn't that be utterly insane by today's standards?

Oh, and proving that hindsight isn't 20/20, I've come to think recently that while Boeing erred in not coming up with a clean-slate replacement for the 737 long ago, it erred even more by not upgrading the 757. The latter is what's driving up the sales of the A321neo. I concede this wasn't foreseeable until very recently, long after the 757 was discontinued.

On other news, La Compagnie has ordered two A321neo for delivery in 2019. So 1) they plan to be still in business then and 2) they are finally updating to a newer aircraft. So far the known info is for adding lie-flat seats and seat-back screens, as opposed to the current angled-flat and tablets in use today. Oh, and WiFi as well as opposed to nothing right now.

Good for them, though I can't quite see an airline, no matter how boutique, surviving much longer with one and only one route.
Fresh out of clues. Did you really expect anything?
September 22nd, 2017 at 10:43:21 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 807
Posts: 9715
Although the B747 especially it's use for Air Force One is a very powerful symbol of American aviation, in reality the huge fleets were always foreign airlines. Only 20% of Deliveries of B747 were to Domestic airlines.

Model Dom Int'l Unid Total %Dom
Total 737 4159 5485 15 9659 43%
Total 747 313 1217 3 1533 20%
Total 757 730 319 0 1049 70%
Total 767 501 597 4 1102 45%
Total 777 380 1111 21 1512 25%
Total 787 125 459 5 589 21%
Judging by these sales numbers it is not particularly surprising that USA airlines were not interested in the A380. It was a shock to Airbus that Japan did not purchase any A380s.

108 Japan Airlines (Japan)
94 British Airways (United Kingdom)
93 Singapore Airlines (Singapore)
81 Lufthansa Group (Germany)
79 Korean Air (South Korea)
68 United Airlines (USA)
59 Cathay Pacific Airways (Hong Kong)
57 Qantas (Australia)
53 Air France (France)
53 Northwest Airlines (USA)
48 China Airlines (Taiwan)
45 All Nippon Airways Co., Ltd. (Japan)
45 KLM - Royal Dutch Airlines (Netherlands)
45 Pan Am World Airways (USA)
23 South African Airways (South Africa)
16 American Airlines (USA)
7 US Air Force (USA)
5 Delta Air Lines (USA)
4 Canadian Airlines (Canada)
3 Transamerica Airlines (USA)


Quote: Nareed
Oh, and proving that hindsight isn't 20/20, I've come to think recently that while Boeing erred in not coming up with a clean-slate replacement for the 737 long ago, it erred even more by not upgrading the 757. The latter is what's driving up the sales of the A321neo. I concede this wasn't foreseeable until very recently, long after the 757 was discontinued.

The last B757 delivery was in 2005.

In contrast to the B747, the B757 was heavily used by USA airlines. A total of 70% were delivered to domestic airlines. The USA airlines are still flying 254 of them with an average age of 19.5 years, in comparison to only 20 B747s left with an average age of 23 years. About half of the B757's still flying are by USA airlines.

So the replacement for the 757 has always been of big concern to USA airlines. The 757 has had a top range of almost 4000 nmi, and so far the B737 has been topped at 3500 nmi. The Long Range A321neo recaptures the 4000 nmi range.

While a lot of analysts say the high sales of the A321neo are because of the Long Range version, I have never seen hard numbers about what percentage of the orders are the LR version.
Orders	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	Total
A321neo – 119 81 341 183 301 363 41 1,429

Airbus Launched the Long-Range A321neo Version in January 2015, so we might presume that the strong set of order s in 2015 and 2016 were for the LR version.

I suspect there is no hard numbers, because many airlines simply order a regular A321 with an option to convert to a Long Range version

The aircraft will be equipped with a third auxiliary center fuel tank and could fly around 500-nm farther than the A321ceo with a regular 93.5 MTOW (and only two additional fuel tanks). For the aircraft, Airbus now assumes a standard cabin layout for 206 passengers. Airbus claims the calculated 4,000-nm range even exceeds the 3,850 nm of the winglet-equipped Boeing 757-200W.
The longest current flights
3,395 nmi Boeing 757-200 Stockholm-Arlanda to New York-JFK Delta Air Lines
2,855 nmi Boeing 757-300 Houston-Intercontinental to Anchorage United Air Lines
2,993 nmi Boeing 737-800 Bergen to Stewart International Airport Norwegian Air Shuttle
Chief Operating Officer-Customers John Leahy sees a Boeing 757-replacement market for the 469 Boeing aircraft still flying, plus another 500 more. “We are burning up to 30% less fuel than the 757,” said at the Airbus annual press conference in Toulouse.
September 23rd, 2017 at 6:42:19 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 345
Posts: 12529
Quote: Pacomartin
Judging by these sales numbers it is not particularly surprising that USA airlines were not interested in the A380.


Maybe had Pan Am survived this long. When you look at their jet-age fleet, it seems they were intent on operating every type of plane they could :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_American_World_Airways#Fleet_history

Quote:
In contrast to the B747, the B757 was heavily used by USA airlines. A total of 70% were delivered to domestic airlines.


I suppose this explains the lack of follow-on development. And, as I said, the move towards long-haul narrow bodies in short transatlantic flights couldn't have been foreseen 10-15 years ago.
Fresh out of clues. Did you really expect anything?
September 23rd, 2017 at 9:16:30 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 807
Posts: 9715
Quote: Nareed
And, as I said, the move towards long-haul narrow bodies in short transatlantic flights couldn't have been foreseen 10-15 years ago.


ETOPS 90 and 120 minute flights were approved in December 1984 permitting twin engine B767 flights from St Louis to Paris and Frankfurt with only 187 seats.

Since 1984 the twin engine routs from STL to Paris (4,398 miles) and Frankfurt (4,594 miles) have long since been cancelled as St Louis drifted in importance as a major airlines hub. But next year, WOW airline will introduce narrow body nonstops from Iceland (3,201 miles) .

The 737 Next Generation (NG) program was announced on November 17, 1993. The B757 Transatlantic flights also began in the 1980's AFAIK.

I think the first B737 Transatlantic flights was in 2015 an 86 seat plane that SAS flew from Copenhagen to Boston (3671 miles). The first fully loaded B737 flew the very short distance from Newfoundland to Ireland (less than 2000 miles).

While it seems reasonable that narrow body flights will fly from a big airport to a small airport (like JFK to Burgundy region in France or resorts in Malaga Spain). I don't think they can possibly be used to increase frequency by replacing widebody flights.

More than likely they will connect two small airports (like the Stewart NY to Bergen Norway flight). Airport costs are much lower.

I just don't see them ever moving more than a small fraction of the Transatlantic passengers.

Even as late as 2006 Airbus was estimating they could sell over 700 A380s and produce 45 per year. They never broke 30 deliveries.

Boeing 747 deliveries by country (including Freight versions) total 1533
  1. 313 USA
  2. 180 Japan
  3. 103 United Kingdom - A380
  4. 93 Singapore - A380
  5. 92 South Korea - A380
  6. 83 Germany - A380
  7. 67 Taiwan
  8. 62 France - A380
  9. 59 Hong Kong
  10. 57 Australia - A380
  11. 47 Netherlands
  12. 41 China - A380 (only 5)
  13. 32 Luxembourg
  14. 28 Saudi Arabia
  15. 26 Thailand - A380
  16. 24 Malaysia - A380
  17. 23 South Africa
  18. 21 Canada
  19. 19 India
  20. 17 Italy
  21. 11 Russian Federation
  22. 11 Israel
  23. 11 Iran
  24. 9 Spain
  25. 9 New Zealand
  26. 8 Philippines
  27. 8 Indonesia
  28. 7 Switzerland
  29. 7 Kuwait
  30. 7 Argentina
  31. 6 Sweden
  32. 5 Brazil
  33. 5 Azerbaijan
  34. 4 United Arab Emirates - A380's biggest customer
  35. 4 Portugal
  36. 4 Iraq
  37. 4 Belgium
  38. 3 Unidentified
  39. 3 Lebanon
  40. 3 Jordan
  41. 2 Syrian Arab Republic
  42. 2 Pakistan
  43. 2 Ireland
  44. 2 Greece
  45. 2 Egypt
  46. 1 Namibia
  47. 1 Morocco
  48. 1 Madagascar
  49. 1 Gabon
  50. 1 Côte d’Ivoire
  51. 1 Colombia
  52. 1 Cameroon


The larger number of USA deliveries is because they include a lot of freight versions, military versions, private jets, and leasing companies which often are flown by international airlines.
September 24th, 2017 at 7:28:56 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 345
Posts: 12529
Quote: Pacomartin
While it seems reasonable that narrow body flights will fly from a big airport to a small airport (like JFK to Burgundy region in France or resorts in Malaga Spain). I don't think they can possibly be used to increase frequency by replacing widebody flights.


Maybe not for frequencies, because the time difference limits the desirable departure times.

But:

Quote:
More than likely they will connect two small airports (like the Stewart NY to Bergen Norway flight). Airport costs are much lower.

I just don't see them ever moving more than a small fraction of the Transatlantic passengers.


For having more flights from more airports to European destinations, they just might. Instead of flying from a score of small cities in the eastern coast to NYC or Boston, you could now fly directly to London, Paris, Barcelona, Dublin, Copenhagen, Amsterdam, etc.

And, who knows, if the legacy airlines get into this fad, they may realize they're not filling up their big widebodies at the hubs. So maybe instead they can consolidate those flights into a bigger plane ;)
Fresh out of clues. Did you really expect anything?
September 24th, 2017 at 10:39:44 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 807
Posts: 9715
Quote: Nareed
For having more flights from more airports to European destinations, they just might. Instead of flying from a score of small cities in the eastern coast to NYC or Boston, you could now fly directly to London, Paris, Barcelona, Dublin, Copenhagen, Amsterdam, etc.


This list of airports below are the most obvious be targets for single aisle jet routes to Europe. They are airports on the Northeast, East and Great Lakes region of the USA (designated by the FAA). The order is from busiest to least busiest.

The larger airports have multiple flights to Europe. Norwegian has found three airports to inaugurate their nonstop single aisle flights to Europe.
Stewart International is a very small airport, but it is still 70 miles from Port Authority in Manhattan allowing bus service.

3500 nmi = 4028 statute miles
4000 nmi = 4603 statute miles
Table in statute miles shows distance to LHR

-- LARGE
3,953 IL ORD Chicago Chicago O'Hare International
3,452 NY JFK New York John F Kennedy International
3,466 NJ EWR Newark Newark Liberty International
4,015 MN MSP Minneapolis Minneapolis-St Paul International/Wold-Chamberlain
3,265 MA BOS Boston General Edward Lawrence Logan International
3,767 MI DTW Detroit Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County
3,450 NY LGA New York Laguardia
3,545 PA PHL Philadelphia Philadelphia International
3,635 MD BWI Glen Burnie Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall
3,664 VA DCA Arlington Ronald Reagan Washington National
3,956 IL MDW Chicago Midway International
3,677 VA IAD Dulles Washington Dulles International
-- MEDIUM
3,996 IN IND Indianapolis Indianapolis International
3,744 OH CLE Cleveland Cleveland-Hopkins International
3,720 PA PIT Pittsburgh Pittsburgh International
3,849 OH CMH Columbus John Glenn Columbus International
3,908 WI MKE Milwaukee General Mitchell International
3,352 CT BDL Windsor Locks Bradley International<============ Norwegian
3,553 NY BUF Buffalo Buffalo Niagara International
-- SMALL
3,309 RI PVD Warwick Theodore Francis Green State<============ Norwegian
3,737 VA RIC Highland Springs Richmond International
3,718 VA ORF Norfolk Norfolk International
3,363 NY ALB Albany Albany International
3,821 MI GRR Grand Rapids Gerald R Ford International
3,503 NY ROC Rochester Greater Rochester International
3,906 OH DAY Dayton James M Cox Dayton International
3,259 NH MHT Manchester Manchester
3,441 NY SYR Syracuse Syracuse Hancock International
3,954 WI MSN Madison Dane County Regional-Truax Field
3,185 ME PWM Portland Portland International Jetport
3,431 NY HPN White Plains Westchester County
3,750 OH CAK Akron Akron-Canton Regional
3,417 NY ISP Islip Long Island MacArthur
3,266 VT BTV Burlington Burlington International
3,593 PA MDT Harrisburg Harrisburg International
3,536 NJ ACY Atlantic City Atlantic City International
4,204 SD FSD Sioux Falls Joe Foss Field
... Non-Hub
3,419 NY SWF Newburgh Stewart International <============ Norwegian


Last year FAA designated 30 airports as large and they carry 73% of passengers. An additional 31 airports are designated medium, and medium and large carry 89% of passengers. An additional 71 airports are small and they carry all but 3.3% of the passengers load. So Stewart International is a very tiny airport to not even get a "small" designation.
September 25th, 2017 at 10:50:45 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 345
Posts: 12529
Quote: Pacomartin
This list of airports below are the most obvious be targets for single aisle jet routes to Europe. They are airports on the Northeast, East and Great Lakes region of the USA (designated by the FAA). The order is from busiest to least busiest.


Another option that may work if the fares are low enough, is something like the milk run flights I outlined before. Only this time what, say, Norwegian may do i s fly from one small airport to another relatively nearby, pick up more passengers (not let any off), and then fly to Europe. I think this should be allowed,a s the airline isn't transporting people inside the country.

BTW, the C Series could fly non-stop London-NYC. As far as I know, no one is planning such flights. But no one was planning the 737 flights between Stewart and Europe a few years ago, either.
Fresh out of clues. Did you really expect anything?