Capacity vs Frequency

[smit0847]

I've seen several articles on the long-term unsuitability of the A380 for airlines like QF which has made me think about the capacity vs frequency argument.

Let's take SYD-HKG as an example. QF have an (almost) daily A380 service between the 2 cities. While the A380 is certainly a marketing drawcard (some friends of mine believe it to be a wildly different flying experience to any other aircraft despite near identical hard and soft products and will go out of their way to fly it), its huge capacity means there is only 1 flight per day. This is a major downside for travellers, especially business travellers as they have no choice. While the B787 is a much, much smaller aircraft than the A380 (half the capacity?), if QF were running 2 x 787 flights per day with a same or similar hard and soft product to an A380 this would give travellers the choice of 2 flights per day. This seems like a much smarter option.

Leaving aside landing slot availability (and EK codeshares) into LHR I've heard commentators say that QF pax want frequency on smaller aircraft into LHR, not 2 daily A380s that both land at the same time. As much as I get the allure of the A380 (more of a feat of engineering than anything), it makes sense to have multiple smaller (A330/787/777-200) frequencies per day rather than organising your entire trip around the daily A380.

Is this the way of the future for airlines with limited international networks? More frequency with smaller planes? Is the A380 only going to be suitable for slot-controlled or government restricted landings where they need to increase capacity without increasing capacity?

Hypothetically of course, would QFs 12 A380s have worked better as 30 787s or 777-200s?

 

[harvyk]

For a while they actually ran two SYD-HKG services (don't know if they still do, haven't looked), one as a B744, and the other as an A333.
Certainly for short haul, frequency is considered king... I have more options for flights from CBR-SYD than I do for buses from home into work, but long haul, esp using the DXB-LHR example, well since both those flights actually originate from SYD / MEL, I (and I suspect QF) sees them as nothing more than re-fueling stops where pax are allowed to leave / join the service. If it was possible, then there would be no stopover in DXB, much like there is no longer a stop over in HNL for a SYD-LAX flight. Over that sort of distance, I see frequency as been less of an issue, since timezones will only allow for a limited arrivals / departure windows.

Until it's possible to pop over to London for the day from Sydney, capacity will win out over frequency IMHO, at least on long haul.

 

[RooFlyer]

The thing missing in the OP's analysis is cost per pax. If you run 2 x 787 vs 1 A380, you might carry (roughly) the same number of pax - maybe garner some more because your timetable is now more flexible - but the costs would go up hugely - especially labour and maintenance.

And if you are going long haul (LHR, LAX, NYC) while a businessman would certainly appreciate a choice of departure / arrival time, maybe given that the time in the arrival country is going to be longer than just for that one meeting its not such a huge deal. I know I never plan much on arrival day (especially as you have to anticipate some arrival delay) so whether its an 8am fixed arrival or a choice of 8am or 2pm its not a major factor. For leisure travelers I doubt it makes much difference at all except at the margin.

 

[straitman]

The thing missing in the OP's analysis is cost per pax. If you run 2 x 787 vs 1 A380, you might carry (roughly) the same number of pax - maybe garner some more because your timetable is now more flexible - but the costs would go up hugely - especially labour and maintenance.

Roo Flyer,

As you said the cost per pax is the important thing so your concept is great but over simplified. Breaking it down a B787 would be a lot cheaper to maintain than an A380. You would need more pilots but not double and the same with cabin crew. At the same time you would pickup more pax because of the better schedule.

You need to, as the airlines do, look at the whole picture of cost and then balance that against any increase or loss of customers for one versus the other caused by the timetable variation. If two smaller a/c cost about 120-125% of one larger that should just about be neutralised by the more flexible schedules.

 

[zainman]

IMHO the only airline that has the capability to fully utilise the potential of the A380, is Emirates.

 

[RooFlyer]

Roo Flyer,

As you said the cost per pax is the important thing so your concept is great but over simplified. Breaking it down a B787 would be a lot cheaper to maintain than an A380. You would need more pilots but not double and the same with cabin crew. At the same time you would pickup more pax because of the better schedule.

You need to, as the airlines do, look at the whole picture of cost and then balance that against any increase or loss of customers for one versus the other caused by the timetable variation. If two smaller a/c cost about 120-125% of one larger that should just about be neutralised by the more flexible schedules.

I gather that you know more about the technical side of flying than I do (most do! )

But aren't we talking about TWO 787s to do the same job (pax ferrying) as one A380 (I haven't looked at how many each can carry but in round numbers maybe that's OK)?

How do 2 x 2 787 maintenance bills compare to one A380? I think an A380 has a Captain, FO and engineer (three on flight deck). A 787 might have a captain and FO. Without an engineer that still four to ferry a similar number of pax than the A380 three and, indeed, that's double the number of 'pilots'. <Ignoring 'resting' crew per journey.> If one says you need 1 whole extra A380 and 1 extra 787s to cover for breakdowns, then the numbers come more into alignment, but I don't think that's how the figures are driven.

To say that I need to look at 'the whole picture of cost' as airlines do is, well, very sorry, not helpful to the argument. You may know the ins and out of the whole cost structure, but as a mere 'frequent flyer' I don't. Happy to have it spelled out though if you have the numbers.

All I can say is that, on any transport system, carrying (say) 500 pax, be it on trains from Sydney to Gordon, by bus from Perth to South Perth or Sydney to LHR using one unit will be cheaper than using 2 units, in the absence of some cost anomaly#. But show me the comparative cost numbers and I'll run up the white flag.

# As I've mentioned on another thread today, if we are talking about long haul A380s - LHR or LAX, then the convenience of schedule I think lessens. It takes 12-15 hrs, so for businessmen (as I am) its unlikely they will schedule anything important on day of arrival; I always allow for delays and don't really want to front a client totally zonked. Leisure pax are also unlikely to be that fixated on the hour of arrival at the start of a 1, 2 or 3 week stay.

 

[ermen]

I think frequency wins over capacity - with the caveat that the hard product is about same and in the twin aisle planes. e.g. for HK, would you choose the QF MKII over the CX Cirrus seat? Or do other factors come into play? Also, an exception applies for ultra LH flights I think...

The A380 is / was a legacy of the hub and spoke model. With the newer, smaller and more efficient planes, point to point is becoming more important...

How the A380 can be used is where the frequency is so high that adding another plane doesn't really make that much sense, then you start thinking about adding capacity. e.g. I think CX has 5 x HKG LHR flights and they were saying that doesn't make sense to add a 6th so maybe thinking if an A380 solution works.

Or some of the shorter intra-asia flights use a A380...

 

[ermen]

I gather that you know more about the technical side of flying than I do (most do! )

But aren't we talking about TWO 787s to do the same job (pax ferrying) as one A380 (I haven't looked at how many each can carry but in round numbers maybe that's OK)?

How do 2 x 2 787 maintenance bills compare to one A380? I think an A380 has a Captain, FO and engineer (three on flight deck). A 787 might have a captain and FO. Without an engineer that still four to ferry a similar number of pax than the A380 three and, indeed, that's double the number of 'pilots'. <Ignoring 'resting' crew per journey.> If one says you need 1 whole extra A380 and 1 extra 787s to cover for breakdowns, then the numbers come more into alignment, but I don't think that's how the figures are driven.

To say that I need to look at 'the whole picture of cost' as airlines do is, well, very sorry, not helpful to the argument. You may know the ins and out of the whole cost structure, but as a mere 'frequent flyer' I don't. Happy to have it spelled out though if you have the numbers.

All I can say is that, on any transport system, carrying (say) 500 pax, be it on trains from Sydney to Gordon, by bus from Perth to South Perth or Sydney to LHR using one unit will be cheaper than using 2 units, in the absence of some cost anomaly#. But show me the comparative cost numbers and I'll run up the white flag.

# As I've mentioned on another thread today, if we are talking about long haul A380s - LHR or LAX, then the convenience of schedule I think lessens. It takes 12-15 hrs, so for businessmen (as I am) its unlikely they will schedule anything important on day of arrival; I always allow for delays and don't really want to front a client totally zonked. Leisure pax are also unlikely to be that fixated on the hour of arrival at the start of a 1, 2 or 3 week stay.

I think fuel costs also are a big factor in choosing an A380 or twin engine plane? So conceivably, A380 may not have high cost savings due to fuel burn...

Manufacturers probably fudge their numbers or make a whole range of assumptions but would be interesting to compare the CASK over the A380 versus twin engine...

 

[JohnK]

Most aircraft are OK if travelling business or First.

Travelling in economy is a totally different story.

How many bulkhead aisle seats does a QF A330 have that I can pre allocate? Forget JQ and assume QF has the 787s. So again how many bulkhead aisles can I pre allocate?

Frequency is fantastic but to me aircraft type is much more important. I will go out of my way to ensure I got what I wanted. Even if I was travelling for business.

 

[dajop]

One factor for the analysis, do travellers want frequency as in 2 flights a day that depart a few hours apart, or 2 flights at opposite times of the day? If it is the former, often capacity will trump frequency as it probably means lower operating costs. QF, where they have multiple departures from the same ports, tend to have all their departures leaving foreign ports at around the same time (LHR, LAX, SIN), in fact all their departures anywhere in the world tend to leave the foreign ports during the evenings (SCL the exception) so having two smaller planes on the SYD-HKG route may well just mean you have a 9am and 1pm departure from SYD and 8pm and midnight departure from HKG. So why not just the one aircraft to do the same job?

 

[Mwenenzi]

On long haul flights airport curfews and landing slot allocation needs to be considered. And crew rest time at the away airport.
No use having a 2nd aircraft take off 12 hrs after the first if can't land