Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Why do you find it so hard to grasp that the last iteration of a mid 'sixties design cannot match the operating economics of an early 'nineties one?
The 747-8I has inferior CASM to the A388 at similar seating densities.
Nothing theoretical about it, it is what is happening right now in the real world.
I gave you an example in the one airline that will operate both, Lufthansa.
Nothing theoretical there.
I wish that the 747-8I could be a few hundred plane program.
The economics of the aircraft mitigate against that, though.
Take off your headphones, see what's going on, as the Kinks song goes.
Also, what does Honeywell even do for Airbus?
I thought they prefered Thales.
You either having an extremely short memory or just can't read. Read post #2492769 for what Honeywell is doing for Airbus.
http://www.honeywell.com/sites/aero/Flight_Management_Systems.htm
https://commerce.honeywell.com/webapp/wc...5&langId=-1
The 747-8 is not the last iteration of the mid sixties design. It has a new wings, engines, and the latest FMS. The body has more composite to reduce weight similar to the 787. The problem is you are sold on the Airbus infomercial like I have said previously and know nothing about the actual aircraft performance in services. I have access to both Boeing and Airbus Aero Engine database and actual fuel burn. The main function of the FMS is to minimize fuel burn. One more time, there is no 380 and 748 with the same seating densities currently in service now or in the near future. Actual CASM is calculated with 525 seats for the A380 and it is not lower than the 748 with 467 seats as ordered for the Korean airlines. Lufthansa ordered 386 seats because they want to carry more freight not because they can't get the 467 seats version.
Again, show me the math and stop going off topic with stocks and headphones, and songs. Do you even know how CASM is calculated? Do you know what Cost Index value is?