Re: A340-500/600 and B777-200X/-300X

Date:         21 Dec 97 17:01:25 
From:         mweber@t140.aone.net.au (James Matthew Weber)
Organization: Customer of Access One Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia
References:   1 2
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

In article <airliners.1997.2982@ohare.Chicago.COM>, Marc Schaeffer <marcmsc@geocities.com> wrote:>A major key to the freezing of the 777X program was the high operating
>costs of such an a/c.
...
>- In the SQ config there were 200 seats, this is 92 seats less than for
>the normal three class config for the 772. Less seats means less income,
>and even if those remaining seats are more expensive you would have to
>increase tickets-pricing by 50% to compensate. If the seats are too
>expensive the loading factor would drop, giving you less income ...

As I think I have pointed out previously, it has been reported that SQ
has cooled considerably toward the SIN-LAX Non-stop service. It was
reported that the study suggested a load factor of 90% was required
for breakeven operation.  I suspect what is holding up many ultra-long
range prospects is the economic analysis is very bad.  Airlines are
interested until they work the numbers. They want a 777-200X type
aircraft, they don't like the operating costs.

On some routes, the lift capacity was tightly controlled, and this
allowed very high fares, and very high yields. When QF and PA/UA had
the duopoly on the SYD-LAX run, they filled their respective SP
aircraft everynight, and the lowest fare was a full Y. The operating
economies were horrible, but the yields were astronomical.

The problem is on routes like SIN-LAX, there are half a dozen ways to
do it, (Via Hkg, Via TPE, via SEL, Via NRT, Via Kix...). There is no
duopoly involved, so it is hard to get the public to bite on the
premium that needs to be charged to make these operations attractive.
It would appear the 747-400	IGW is an attempt to make some sense
of these operations and allow them with reasonable payloads.

As for the time saved, the costs are getting hard to justify. The
justification for Concorde has always been time. Note that Concorde
services have ceased from Miami and Washington, and frankly my
experience is the loads into and out of JFK aren't that good any
longer. You can get from LHR to JFK in time for it to do you any good.
In the other direction, the day is lost whether you fly in Concorde or
the daylight 747.

The ultra long haul is something lots of people seem to want until
they have to pay for it.

My opinions anyway.