Thread: Falcon 7X
View Single Post
Old 08-08-2010 | 07:00 AM
  #84  
QuietSpike's Avatar
QuietSpike
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
From: Not on this message board.
Default

Originally Posted by geosynchronous
Unsupported?

There is definitely no "myth" on the operating economics...

Annual Budget (no depreciation)

Falcon 7X/ G550

Utilization (nm.) 175,000/ 175,000
Utilization (hours) 407/ 413
Variable Cost $1,126,832/ $1,363,016
Fixed Cost $717,506/ $827,531
Total Cost $1,844,338/ $2,190,546
Per nm $10.54/ $12.52
Per hour $4,532/ $5,304
Per seat mile $0.88 / $0.70
Typical price/1000 (mil.) $47,400/ $48,995

Source: Conklin & deDecker Aircraft Cost Evaluator 2009 vol. 1 v. 4.8.0

IMHO, Dassault marketing is brilliant. They have marketed an aircraft that sells for $1,595,000 less; and in terms of an annual operating budget, an owner can utilize the 7X for 16% less than a G550.

All with an extra engine...why not market triple redundancy for less money?

Comparing a 7x and a 550 is not a "true" comparison!! I could compare a G150 to a Falcon 2000 and it would kick the crud out of it from an operating budget!!

The fact that you are trying to discounts your credibility!!

I never said that dasso's marketing was poor!! I said the MYTH of 3 being better than 2 is just that.. a myth! Any pilot that buys that myth needs to do some research!!

You may "breathe easier" before you cross the atlantic with 3 engines (completely in your head, btw), but you will also be waiting for 3 engine starts for something to fail... 3 times more likely to have something break, and also statistically 3 times more likely to have an engine failure over a 2 engine aircraft.
Reply