Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5869290/

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: dkramer7
Posted 2013-09-12 19:15:47 and read 25757 times.

Hi all

I see more and more statements dismissing the B747-400 as "gas guzzling".

My question is, was it always a gas guzzler? Or does the fuel consumption go up over time?

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: bristolflyer
Posted 2013-09-12 19:22:15 and read 25728 times.

I'm sure the notion that it is now a gas guzzler is that aircraft and have been getting more and more efficient meaning older designs are left treading water. It used to be 'state of the art' when it was introduced, not it's long in the tooth and the fuel economy is nowhere near as good as today's offerings.

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: AADC10
Posted 2013-09-12 19:42:14 and read 25583 times.

The 744 was a reasonably efficient four engine aircraft in its time. 2 engine aircraft were more efficient but could not operate many routes under the old ETOPS rules. Under ETOPS 180 there are only a handful of routes that cannot be served with a twin. The 772 offers both greater efficiency and seating comfort over the 744 (and 748) and if you go 10Y on a 772 it beats the 744 by a wide margin. The A380 also beats the 744 in both aspects with the efficiency of larger volume.

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: Pellegrine
Posted 2013-09-12 21:15:06 and read 25163 times.

Quoting dkramer7 (Thread starter):
B747-400 as "gas guzzling".

Comparatively now... The 77W will be gas guzzling given time.

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 2):
The 744 was a reasonably efficient four engine aircraft in its time.

It was extremely efficient for its time. As a derivative, it was top of its class for 20 years.

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: mayor
Posted 2013-09-12 21:34:33 and read 25040 times.

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 2):
The A380 also beats the 744 in both aspects with the efficiency of larger volume.

But it's still not as graceful looking as the 744.        

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: warden145
Posted 2013-09-12 21:39:17 and read 25010 times.

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 3):
Comparatively now... The 77W will be gas guzzling given time.

There are some people already making that claim!! All I can say is "hindsight is 20/20"...on the one hand, look at how efficient a Rolls Royce Trent 1000 is compared to an RB211-524H as used in a 747-400. On the other hand, look at how efficient an RB211 is compared to a Pratt & Whitney JT9D....and how a JT9D compares to a JT3D, how a JT3D compares to a Wright R-3350, etc ad naseum. The point I'm trying to get at (and that others have made) is that what was state of the art 20 years ago would be considered inefficient by today's standards. No major carrier would even joke about putting a 707 on a route in 2013, but in the early 1960's it was arguably the most efficient aircraft available (certainly compared to the prop birds that were still around in large numbers at that point).

On a personal note, I've always had a soft spot for the 747...I know she has far more years behind her than ahead of her, but I still find it kind of sad how much hate some people pile on the Queen of the Skies...

Quoting mayor (Reply 4):
But it's still not as graceful looking as the 744.        

AMEN!!! Big grin OTOH to me, the only conventional jet that looks better than the 747 is the 707...but, I guess raw efficiency trumps art, sadly IMHO...

[Edited 2013-09-12 21:41:11]

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: LAXintl
Posted 2013-09-12 21:43:53 and read 24983 times.

Simply put, the 744 is yesterdays plane. The economics are not there anymore for many operators.

Same how todays darling 77W shall be pushed out of the way one day also.

Its called progess.

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: mayor
Posted 2013-09-12 22:18:56 and read 24755 times.

Quoting warden145 (Reply 5):
AMEN!!! Big grin OTOH to me, the only conventional jet that looks better than the 747 is the 707...but, I guess raw efficiency trumps art, sadly IMHO...

I actually like the CV880 better than the 707, but I'm talking of beauty before efficiency in this case, again.

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: Pellegrine
Posted 2013-09-12 22:27:41 and read 24709 times.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 6):
Simply put, the 744 is yesterdays plane. The economics are not there anymore for many operators.

Yes this is true in theory and going forward, yet in the 2000s and first half of the 2010s the 744 has remained a significant profitable element in many worldwide fleets.

Yes it is on the way out, and on a personal note, I will miss it.

As I have posted even before there was a 777X proposed, theoretically the A35J should spank the pants off the 77W.

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-09-12 22:34:46 and read 24654 times.

Quoting dkramer7 (Thread starter):
My question is, was it always a gas guzzler? Or does the fuel consumption go up over time?

Older frames due see higher fuel consumption due to age (wear and tear on components and such).

zeke provided some fuel burn figures for various CX airframes and on a similar mission, the 747-400 burns about 3 tons more fuel per hour than the 777-300ER.

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: trent1000
Posted 2013-09-13 01:00:24 and read 24125 times.

Although this is an old article now (June, 2012), it's still worth a look. It gives a comparsion of MH's 747 and A380 fuel consumption.

http://www.smh.com.au/travel/jumbo-j...-out-of-favour-20120620-20nx8.html

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: na
Posted 2013-09-13 02:41:30 and read 23675 times.

In its heyday in the 90s, the 747-400 was as much a gas-guzzler as the 77W is today. Its simply technological progress which makes the 744 appear like that today. But its still a viable, reliable plane which works for many airlines.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 6):
Simply put, the 744 is yesterdays plane. The economics are not there anymore for many operators.

Same how todays darling 77W shall be pushed out of the way one day also.

Its called progess.

That says everything. More words are not needed in this thread.

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: 1400mph
Posted 2013-09-13 04:39:10 and read 22857 times.

With 50+ still in the BA fleet I'd like to know the figure for the boost to annual profit when their 744's are all replaced.

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: morrisond
Posted 2013-09-13 04:43:10 and read 22743 times.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 12):

Yes what would the savings be if they replaced all there 744 with 779?

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-09-13 04:46:46 and read 22640 times.

Quoting na (Reply 11):
In its heyday in the 90s, the 747-400 was as much a gas-guzzler as the 77W is today.

Yes but nobody could really care because the price of fuel was way lower in the 90s.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 12):
With 50+ still in the BA fleet I'd like to know the figure for the boost to annual profit when their 744's are all replaced.

It's no easy math. The 787s and A350s will burn up to 30% less fuel, but the 747s have been payed for meaning the new aircraft will have higher capital costs.

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: Speedbored
Posted 2013-09-13 05:01:14 and read 22344 times.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 12):
With 50+ still in the BA fleet I'd like to know the figure for the boost to annual profit when their 744's are all replaced.
Quoting morrisond (Reply 13):
It's no easy math. The 787s and A350s will burn up to 30% less fuel, but the 747s have been payed for meaning the new aircraft will have higher capital costs.

  

Initially, it would probably actually have a negative affect on their annual profit, rather than boosting it.

Let's take a hypothetical route on which BA are using one of their paid for 747s. It burns 1000 barrels of oil for each leg of the round-trip, which it does once a day. At today's oil proce of around $110 per barrel, that works out at $110 x 1000 x 2 x 365 = roughly $80M per annum fuel cost.

If they then replace that frame with a 777-9 with similar capacity, and manage to purchase it on a lease at the bargain basement rate of $2M per month, or $24M per annum, the additional lease cost for the new 777 is exactly the same as the fuel cost saving that BA would achieve if it is 30% more efficient. So there would be no difference at all to the bottom line.

But, as KarelXWB says, it's a complex equation involving a whole load more variables than just fuel efficiency.

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: airbazar
Posted 2013-09-13 05:12:10 and read 22073 times.

Quoting mayor (Reply 4):
But it's still not as graceful looking as the 744.

I disagree. Watching an A380 coming in for a landing is as beautiful as anything out there. Its smooth, graceful glide is unmatched by any other plane, IMO.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 9):
zeke provided some fuel burn figures for various CX airframes and on a similar mission, the 747-400 burns about 3 tons more fuel per hour than the 777-300ER.

But it can carry a lot more passengers too. Like the 752, it still has its niche missions in which the only thing that can do a 744's job, is another 744 or 748. But like the 752, those missions are shrinking.

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: jfk777
Posted 2013-09-13 05:26:10 and read 21738 times.

It also depends on your route structure. Cathay will Long routes to the USA and Europe with 12 to 14 hours flying timr will find a 777 much more efficient. Lufthnsa and BA with many routes to the east coast of America with 7 to 10 hours flying time will find it efficient.

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: cmf
Posted 2013-09-13 05:37:57 and read 21486 times.

Quoting dkramer7 (Thread starter):
My question is, was it always a gas guzzler? Or does the fuel consumption go up over time?

It was an efficient aircraft at the time. But as many has stated it is a moving goal line and by today's standard it is no longer top of class.

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 2):
2 engine aircraft were more efficient but could not operate many routes under the old ETOPS rules.

You're missing the most important part. As a general rule bigger is more efficient per equal unit moved. It is much more efficient to have a single plain with 4 engines than it is to fly two planes with 2 engines to move the same amount of units.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 6):
Its called progess.

  

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 14):
Yes but nobody could really care because the price of fuel was way lower in the 90s.


That is not what I remember. I think cost of fuel has always been a concern and less use of fuel always being a major feature.

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: chieft
Posted 2013-09-13 06:28:08 and read 20396 times.

It is interesting, that everybody here compares the B747-400 with the B777s and possibly the coming A350s.

The more I wonder about the fact, that the B744 successor should be the B748; but it is a big disappointment for Boeing on the passenger side. Virtually no airline is interested in this state-of-the-art B747 version. The A380 is a larger success.

The 2-wholers are the ones driving the market as they are more economical to operate. 4-wholers are the Dinosaurs of our time.

Beside the fuel matter, economics of an aircraft are also driven by other factors. If the capital costs, i.e., are low enough, the even higher costs for fuel and maintenance could still lead to an economical operation of B747-400s.

As an example I would take LH; their B744s are depreciated, so the capital costs are virtually non existent. Possibly a reason, why they still operate them successfully.

[Edited 2013-09-13 06:31:45]

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: winstonlegthigh
Posted 2013-09-13 06:59:20 and read 19797 times.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 16):
I disagree. Watching an A380 coming in for a landing is as beautiful as anything out there. Its smooth, graceful glide is unmatched by any other plane, IMO.

I had to see it to believe it. I agree, definitely graceful- almost majestic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdtoXiDNQoo

 

[Edited 2013-09-13 06:59:50]

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: cmf
Posted 2013-09-13 07:19:51 and read 19326 times.

Quoting chieft (Reply 19):
The 2-wholers are the ones driving the market as they are more economical to operate. 4-wholers are the Dinosaurs of our time.

A,net myth. Reality is that the most economical tool is using the right tool for the job. When the right plane is bigger than a two engine plane can handle then the four engine is usually the most economical tool. On the few occasions where an AN-225 is the right tool you need 6 engines. As it isn't economical to build a plane with 4 engines to replace it.

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: exFWAOONW
Posted 2013-09-13 08:14:20 and read 18182 times.

Quoting warden145 (Reply 5):
...No major carrier would even joke about putting a 707 on a route in 2013, but in the early 1960's it was arguably the most efficient aircraft available (certainly compared to the prop birds that were still around in large numbers at that point)....

I doubt that is true. The 707 and other early jets burned more fuel to go faster than their prop bretheren. In the "I want to go faster, too" world we have become, it was marketing that drove the switch to more jets not fuel economy.

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: roseflyer
Posted 2013-09-13 08:23:12 and read 18013 times.

If you go back in time to the mid 1980s, range was a big problem. Europe – East Asia was close to impossible. US – Asia outside of Japan was also a challenge. US – Australia/New Zealand was also a challenge.

Those routes were big core markets, but the only airplanes that had a chance of operating them nonstop were the extended range 747 SP along with the longer range DC-10-30ERs or DC10-40s and L1011-500s. Those airplanes were rare, and very inefficient since they traded passengers for range.

The 747-400 was the first airplane with transpacific range that didn’t sacrifice passengers and payload. Range alone could sell the airplane, and every long haul airline bought it. The oil shock of the 1970s was over and fuel burn was less of a priority. Nonstop was the mission. Accordingly, range was key to the design which meant the engine design was pushed for more and more thrust. Fuel efficiency increases range, but the emphasis was not on fuel economy like it has been with the 787 and 777 designs. It was on increasing MTOW and more thrust since the 747-400 was using the most powerful engines in production back in the 80s.

The result is a great airplane, but one that has high fuel burn. The 777, A330 and 787 all beat it.

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: AS737MAX
Posted 2013-09-13 08:28:54 and read 17883 times.

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 23):
The 777, A330 and 787 all beat it.

And the reason why the 747-8i has not done very well is because Boeing let that market slip away to the 77W

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: RamblinMan
Posted 2013-09-13 09:11:55 and read 17913 times.

Quoting chieft (Reply 19):
It is interesting, that everybody here compares the B747-400 with the B777s and possibly the coming A350s.
The more I wonder about the fact, that the B744 successor should be the B748

Simple- Those are the aircraft which taking over missions from the 744. The fact that they look dissimilar or have fewer engines or whatever is completely irrelevant. The 748 is a reboot of an old plane, and was bound to fail. It's kind of like how the first A350 was just a slightly modified 330...then they realized it would never be competitive with the 787 and went back to the drawing board and the result is, IMHO, magnificent. Not even sure what Boeing was thinking with the 748, as they already offer the 77W which has similar capabilities.

Quoting cmf (Reply 21):
an AN-225

THE An-225. There's only one.

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: alfa164
Posted 2013-09-13 09:14:33 and read 17914 times.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 16):

I disagree. Watching an A380 coming in for a landing is as beautiful as anything out there. Its smooth, graceful glide is unmatched by any other plane, IMO.

The "smooth, graceful glide" may be beautiful, but f you have to look at the aircraft itself... that ugly, odd-looking nose makes you want to vomit...

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: LH707330
Posted 2013-09-13 09:28:37 and read 17964 times.

Quoting exFWAOONW (Reply 22):
I doubt that is true. The 707 and other early jets burned more fuel to go faster than their prop bretheren. In the "I want to go faster, too" world we have become, it was marketing that drove the switch to more jets not fuel economy.

Exactly true, the 3350s were pretty efficient, but fuel was cheap, so the tradeoff on cool factor and transporting more people due to faster speeds tipped the scales in favor of the 707.

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: warren747sp
Posted 2013-09-13 11:00:57 and read 16253 times.

The title goes to the A380 now!

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2013-09-13 12:31:45 and read 14934 times.

"Gas Guzzler" is a catch all for the 744 having higher RASM.
I should do some numbers... but while the 744 has been improved quite a bit in the last decade (engine and airframe PIPs), it hasn't been as much as the 77W. But one reason the A346 will be retired before 744s is that the A346 didn't have enough sales to justify the normal PIPs to keep the performance/maintenance steadily improving.

What's with the discussion on aircraft looks? Any airline buying on anything but economics is either bankrupt or going that way. As noted upthread, part of the reason for 744 retirements is that smaller gauge planes are allowed non-stop flights versus 'hops' or connections. Where in the era of the mega hub and that will only become more important with time. The 744 is in an odd size point *and* competing with the 77W, 788, and soon A359.

Quoting RamblinMan (Reply 25):
THE An-225. There's only one.

If you need that capacity, one will pay. But there was a day when a German railroad was going to refuse *all* the GE locomotives ordered unless every one arrived on the promise date. Since only the AN-225 could haul them and it was during the downturn when too many railroads were trying to refuse previously ordered locamotives, flying them on the AN-225 saved GE money (vs. a lost order).

Lightsaber

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: WildcatYXU
Posted 2013-09-13 12:45:13 and read 14614 times.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 29):
But there was a day when a German railroad was going to refuse *all* the GE locomotives ordered unless every one arrived on the promise date. Since only the AN-225 could haul them and it was during the downturn when too many railroads were trying to refuse previously ordered locamotives, flying them on the AN-225 saved GE money (vs. a lost order).

Actually, it was an AN-124.

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: warden145
Posted 2013-09-13 13:09:14 and read 14212 times.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 29):
What's with the discussion on aircraft looks? Any airline buying on anything but economics is either bankrupt or going that way.

With all due respect...you're correct from an economic standpoint, but what's wrong with people stating their personal preferences?  

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: NWAROOSTER
Posted 2013-09-13 13:22:37 and read 13986 times.

Quoting chieft (Reply 19):
The more I wonder about the fact, that the B744 successor should be the B748; but it is a big disappointment for Boeing on the passenger side. Virtually no airline is interested in this state-of-the-art B747 version. The A380 is a larger success.

Boeing did not make the 747-8i available until well after the Airbus A380 was being marketed and sold. I have have heard that Airbus has not sold any new A380s for about one year. The A380 has pretty much made its limit on sales.
Only so many aircraft like the A380 are needed and it is reaching its limit of marketability. This can also be said of the latest version of the 747. There are many large twins that now can do what both these aircraft will do and do not require the larger passenger counts.   

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: 707lvr
Posted 2013-09-13 13:22:47 and read 13947 times.

We've compared the 747 with other Boeing models. What I would like to know is which airplane burns more fuel on a 6,000 mile flight with 400 passengers, a Boeing 747-8 or an Airbus 380?

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: tjh8402
Posted 2013-09-13 14:12:06 and read 13086 times.

Quoting 707lvr (Reply 33):
We've compared the 747 with other Boeing models. What I would like to know is which airplane burns more fuel on a 6,000 mile flight with 400 passengers, a Boeing 747-8 or an Airbus 380?

I'm sure the A380 probably will, but you'll make more $ off those passengers as a 400 seat A380 is going to be a very premium heavy configuration, whereas a 400 seat 748 will have a lot more low revenue Y seats.

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: YULWinterSkies
Posted 2013-09-13 14:21:43 and read 13001 times.

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 2):
The 744 was a reasonably efficient four engine aircraft in its time. 2 engine aircraft were more efficient but could not operate many routes under the old ETOPS rules.

There was also no twin engine a/c bigger than an A-300 or 763 in the late 80s. The 763ER had great range but ETOPS were limiting it a bit, and the A-300 did not have anywhere as much range.
So, the 744 was the only option for high capacity, unless one wanted the (much smaller obviously) MD11. And it was a substantially improved 747, on so many aspects, notably fuel consumption, noise, range, 2 pilot-only cockpit, etc...

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 14):
Yes but nobody could really care because the price of fuel was way lower in the 90s.

And also because nothing better was available. Yes cost of fuel it was less of a big deal then, but if it was not a factor at all, how do you explain that in the 90s, the 747 classics were massively retired at the benefit of the -400?

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: cmf
Posted 2013-09-13 14:33:59 and read 12790 times.

Quoting RamblinMan (Reply 25):
THE An-225. There's only one.

Why it is very difficult to find the economics in making something similar with less engines.

Quoting YULWinterSkies (Reply 35):
744 was the only option for high capacity

Obviously you have that 744 was only bought because of range. Capacity was something you got but didn't want   

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2013-09-13 16:34:54 and read 11315 times.

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 23):
Those routes were big core markets, but the only airplanes that had a chance of operating them nonstop were the extended range 747 SP along with the longer range DC-10-30ERs or DC10-40s and L1011-500s. Those airplanes were rare, and very inefficient since they traded passengers for range.

How did the DC-10-30ER trade passengers for range. CP converted several of their DC-10-30s to -ERs for use on routes like YVR-HKG. They had the same seating configuration as the rest of their DC-10-30s. What you say is relevant only to the 747SP and L-1011-500.

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: RomeoBravo
Posted 2013-09-13 17:18:36 and read 10751 times.

It's shame the 744 is dying, it's a beautiful and unique aircraft. But it has basically been destroyed by the 77W. You just need to glance at the 2 aircraft... the 77W just looks so efficient in comparison.

I'm curious how the 748i stacks up against the 77W in terms of economics and performance though?

Has their been any analyses by people on here?

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-09-13 17:24:56 and read 10714 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 9):
zeke provided some fuel burn figures for various CX airframes and on a similar mission, the 747-400 burns about 3 tons more fuel per hour than the 777-300ER.
Quoting airbazar (Reply 16):
But it can carry a lot more passengers too. Like the 752, it still has its niche missions in which the only thing that can do a 744's job, is another 744 or 748. But like the 752, those missions are shrinking.

Indeed it can, which is why airlines continue to operate the 747-400 where they can fill it.



Quoting AS737MAX (Reply 24):
And the reason why the 747-8i has not done very well is because Boeing let that market slip away to the 77W

The 747-8 is hurt due to her high trip costs - like the 747-400, she needs to be filled in order to be profitable.

But if you can fill a 747-8, chances are you can fill an A380-800 - and the A380-800 offers even more revenue generation capability thanks to it's larger size.

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: PGNCS
Posted 2013-09-13 18:50:21 and read 9823 times.

Quoting warden145 (Reply 31):
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 29):What's with the discussion on aircraft looks? Any airline buying on anything but economics is either bankrupt or going that way.With all due respect...you're correct from an economic standpoint, but what's wrong with people stating their personal preferences?

Nothing, except the thread is ostensibly about the economics of the aircraft, a subject that renders personal aesthetic preferences irrelevant.

Quoting na (Reply 11):
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 6):Simply put, the 744 is yesterdays plane. The economics are not there anymore for many operators.

Same how todays darling 77W shall be pushed out of the way one day also.

Its called progess.

That says everything. More words are not needed in this thread.

Exactly correct, na and LAXintl.

Quoting warden145 (Reply 5):
On a personal note, I've always had a soft spot for the 747...I know she has far more years behind her than ahead of her, but I still find it kind of sad how much hate some people pile on the Queen of the Skies...

I have time flying the "Queen of the Skies" and feel no nostalgic attachment to it. It's just a machine. You can like the 747, that's fine and well, but this is an economic discussion.

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-09-13 20:29:00 and read 9467 times.

Cathay has been quoted in the latest Aspire article as indicating that their 77Ws have a25% lower trip cost and a 17% lower seat mile costs than their 744s despite the former carrying more cargo. And the 777x will be 20% better than that. Large twins are cleverly taking share.

tortugamon

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: Max Q
Posted 2013-09-13 23:56:36 and read 9116 times.

Its unfair and unrealistic to compare the B744 to the 77W.


The comparison should be made to the B747 Classic in which case it was an enormous improvement
in fuel burn, capacity and range.

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-09-14 00:30:30 and read 9039 times.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 42):

77w is the most widely used 744 replacement. Why is it unfair if airlines are making that comparison ? In 1989 it was not it was not a gas guzzler. Now it is. Maybe I misinterpreted he question.


tortugamon

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: MD-90
Posted 2013-09-14 01:18:55 and read 8907 times.

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 2):
The 744 was a reasonably efficient four engine aircraft in its time.

If your airline could fill it year round it was the most efficient passenger jet until the 773 came along. Its CASM was superior to the A343, 772, and MD-11 in the 1990s.

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: DarkSnowyNight
Posted 2013-09-14 05:08:35 and read 8591 times.

Quoting warden145 (Reply 5):
On a personal note, I've always had a soft spot for the 747...I know she has far more years behind her than ahead of her, but I still find it kind of sad how much hate some people pile on the Queen of the Skies...

I'll buy that. Occasionally, I'll have reason to fly on one, and I'm not liking how much I have to remind myself that there was a time when I would be very enthusiastic to fly her.

It's like an old girlfriend that you remember being excited about, but lately all you think about is how much effort she is. You know you used to be in love, but now it's just more of an obligation.

Quoting exFWAOONW (Reply 22):
Quoting LH707330 (Reply 27):

While it's true the 707 & DC8 did sell a lot of sex, there's no doubt that they were hugely better than anything else of the time. Their direct operating costs are in line with 377s, Connies, and DC 7s, but they were really 4 engined planes, had vastly superior reliability, and most importantly, carry twice as many PAX .

Imagine the leap today if someone came up with an A380-1000 that had only two engines, a seating capacity of 1200, 20% lower mx costs, and could somehow fly at Concord speed. That's about the level of difference between the DC 8 and the 7 Seas.

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: VV701
Posted 2013-09-14 08:31:20 and read 8278 times.

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 23):
If you go back in time to the mid 1980s, range was a big problem. Europe %u2013 East Asia was close to impossible

  

From Keith Gaskell, "British Airways Its History, Aircraft and Liveries", Airlife (Shrewsbury), 1999, p. 42

"The [BA 747]-236s had also received uprated engines , RB211-524D4s of 53,000 lb thrust, making them suitable for sectors up to 6500 miles such as Heathrow to Los Angeles. By that time, however, the airline's commercial department was demanding aircraft which could operate much longer non-stop routes such as between Heathrow and Bangkok, Hong Kong, Singapore and Tokyo year-round with a full passenger load. Boeing therefore took the opportunity presented by the availability of even more powerful engines . . . to produce . . . the Series-400, which would satisfy the airline's requirement."

This requirement resulted in the BA order for 16 744s plus options on a further 12 that, when placed in August 1986, was, according to Gaskell, ". . . the largest individual aircraft order ever placed."

Gaskell goes on to write:

"At the time it was confidently predicted that these new 747s would also replace the ageing 747-136s, but . . . the early 'Classics' were to survive . . . for another decade."

When the final five BA 136s were retired on 31 October 1999 the oldest, G-AWNE, was closer to 29 than 28 years old and had much earlier been depreciated to a residual scrap value. It was therefore contributing a zero cap[ital. cost to BA's accounts.

It will be interesting to see how much longer the likes of BA's newest 747-436, G-BYGG, that was just fourteen last April, will remain in service. No doubt BA will keep a careful eye on the higher cost of fuel and maintenance against its lower capital cost in determining its retirement date.

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: cmf
Posted 2013-09-14 08:39:57 and read 8213 times.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 46):
with a full passenger load.

Doesn't this mean they wanted the capacity as much or even more than range?   
If it was all about range they certainly could have traded the unwanted capacity for range. Pretty cheap when you don't want it.  

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: Max Q
Posted 2013-09-14 14:21:56 and read 7640 times.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 46):

From Keith Gaskell, "British Airways Its History, Aircraft and Liveries", Airlife (Shrewsbury), 1999, p. 42

"The [BA 747]-236s had also received uprated engines , RB211-524D4s of 53,000 lb thrust, making them suitable for sectors up to 6500 miles such as Heathrow to Los Angeles. By that time, however, the airline's commercial department was demanding aircraft which could operate much longer non-stop routes such as between Heathrow and Bangkok, Hong Kong, Singapore and Tokyo year-round with a full passenger load. Boeing therefore took the opportunity presented by the availability of even more powerful engines . . . to produce . . . the Series-400, which would satisfy the airline's requirement."

This requirement resulted in the BA order for 16 744s plus options on a further 12 that, when placed in August 1986, was, according to Gaskell, ". . . the largest individual aircraft order ever placed."

Gaskell goes on to write:

"At the time it was confidently predicted that these new 747s would also replace the ageing 747-136s, but . . . the early 'Classics' were to survive . . . for another decade."

When the final five BA 136s were retired on 31 October 1999 the oldest, G-AWNE, was closer to 29 than 28 years old and had much earlier been depreciated to a residual scrap value. It was therefore contributing a zero cap[ital. cost to BA's accounts.

It will be interesting to see how much longer the likes of BA's newest 747-436, G-BYGG, that was just fourteen last April, will remain in service. No doubt BA will keep a careful eye on the higher cost of fuel and maintenance against its lower capital cost in determining its retirement date.

Very interesting, the Classic 747's in their final, uprated versions were a quantum leap in capability compared to the early ones.


Cx was operating them non-stop from HKG-LGW and HKG-YVR.



True they were weight restricted but compare their capability to the early -100's and it's very impressive.

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2013-09-14 14:31:34 and read 7594 times.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 48):
the Classic 747's in their final, uprated versions were a quantum leap in capability compared to the early ones.

CX was operating them non-stop from HKG-LGW and HKG-YVR.

Late model 742s basically killed the market for the 747SP. Pan Am bought the SP to operate routes like JFK-NRT but the later 742s were also able to operate that route with much better economics.

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: trex8
Posted 2013-09-14 17:01:31 and read 7307 times.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 49):
JFK-NRT

JFK-Tokyo- Haneda. NRT didnt exist then!!
They initially filed flight plans for ANC and if everything looked good, refiled en route and continued to TYO
Other early SP longhaul flight was CIs TPE-SFO/LAX

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2013-09-14 17:14:39 and read 7251 times.

Quoting trex8 (Reply 50):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 49):
JFK-NRT

JFK-Tokyo- Haneda. NRT didnt exist then!!

Right. I should have referred to HND for Pan Am's initial 747SP service. But by the time NW and JL began 742 nonstop service with their late model 742s from JFK, wasn't NRT open?

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: solarflyer22
Posted 2013-09-14 17:30:31 and read 7135 times.

It was a great plane for its time but it's 25 years old so it's just not as efficient as it used to be. I have a strange question but here it goes,

If you had young frames (like 40) would it make sense to re engine them with GenNX engines and maybe trim some weight? I think that might trim 10-12% of fuel. I don't know what the cost of the engines and certification would be vs just getting 748i. The 747 is capable of high cycles so its feasible.

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: trex8
Posted 2013-09-14 17:59:37 and read 7038 times.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 51):
Right. I should have referred to HND for Pan Am's initial 747SP service. But by the time NW and JL began 742 nonstop service with their late model 742s from JFK, wasn't NRT open?

NRT opened 78 dunno when JL and NW started those flights.

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: DocLightning
Posted 2013-09-14 18:02:15 and read 7063 times.

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 2):

The 744 was a reasonably efficient four engine aircraft in its time. 2 engine aircraft were more efficient but could not operate many routes under the old ETOPS rules.

Not only that, but until 1997 there weren't any twins with the engine power to operate 744 stage lengths. Before the 744, only the 747-SP had that sort of range. Otherwise, flights such as SYD-HNL or JFK-NRT had to make fuel stops on the older 741/2 models. For business passengers flying such routes, the elimination of about two hours of travel time for a landing, fueling, and takeoff made a big difference.

Is she a "gas guzzler?" Of course, all such things are relative. As compared to the 747-SP, she's a queen of efficiency. But compared to the 77W and the A35J, she's a guzzler.

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: Max Q
Posted 2013-09-14 22:25:45 and read 6777 times.

In the early days of the 747 unplanned stops for refuelling were not uncommon.


A great example of this was an American carrier operating from New York - Tokyo that had to stop in
Anchorage for fuel. In this case it had to dump fuel because it had too much in order to land and load more..

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: SchorschNG
Posted 2013-09-15 03:13:32 and read 6455 times.

The B747-400 was very efficient in the late 1980ies. But the A340 and B777-200 were better in seat-mile cost. However, both served a different market (longer range, lower capacity). With appearance of the stretched models (A340-600 and B777-300ER) aircraft with at least 10% lower fuel consumption per seat and comparable capacity became available.

Sales of the B747-400 decreased in the late 1990ies. It was unique due to its capacity.
Since sharp increases in fuel cost (by a factor of three since 2000) have changed economics of air travel, B747 are quickly phased out.

I also think that many airlines have used the B744 on routes which would be better served using smaller aircraft. Today load factors are optimized, and some spill (excess demand) is accepted as long as the yield is sufficient.

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: EPA001
Posted 2013-09-16 08:39:23 and read 5374 times.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 54):
Is she a "gas guzzler?" Of course, all such things are relative. As compared to the 747-SP, she's a queen of efficiency. But compared to the 77W and the A35J, she's a guzzler.

That sums it up quite nicely. In 30 years the A35J & B77X are gas guzzlers.  .

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: buckeyetech
Posted 2013-09-16 10:04:00 and read 5243 times.

This might have been discussed already, but is it possible for a 747 to cruise on two engines? How much longer would a hop across the pond be on two engines, and would it really save a sufficient amount of fuel?

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: LH707330
Posted 2013-09-16 11:30:36 and read 5075 times.

Quoting buckeyetech (Reply 58):
This might have been discussed already, but is it possible for a 747 to cruise on two engines? How much longer would a hop across the pond be on two engines, and would it really save a sufficient amount of fuel?

Yes, but it burns more fuel because you cruise lower and your dead engines cause more drag. A few years back a BA 744 flew LAX-LHR on 3 engines, but diverted to MAN for more fuel.

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2013-09-16 12:53:16 and read 4920 times.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 54):
Is she a "gas guzzler?" Of course, all such things are relative. As compared to the 747-SP, she's a queen of efficiency. But compared to the 77W and the A35J, she's a guzzler.

Excerpt from an article on CX in the September 9 issue of Aviation Week & Space Technology:

The airline is phasing out its 747-400s as new 777-300ERs arrive. It is due to receive six six more -300ERs this year, with eight more to come in 2014 and four in 2015, to give it a total of 50. The airline will cut its 747 fleet to 13 by year-end, and will phase out another six in 2014 and the remainder by 2017.

The 777-300ERs will be significantly more fuel-efficient than the 747s they replace. Cathay Finance Director Martin Murray says the difference is so great that some routes that would be unprofitable with the 747s would be profitable with the 777s.


[Edited 2013-09-16 12:54:22]

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: shankly
Posted 2013-09-16 13:03:34 and read 4924 times.

Had the pleasure of flying a 744 and an A380 (both BA) a few weeks apart earlier this year and I guess the historical comparison must be the same as perhaps flying a 707 or DC-8 back to back with an L1011 or DC-10 in the early 70's

However, in my view the 747-400 is THE aircraft that made long haul travel affordable for us all.

The range and performance gap over the 741, 742, DC-10 and L10 was phenominal. People forget what a leap it was to all of a sudden be able to fly London-Hong Kong or Paris - Bangkok non-stop with a full complement of passengers and cargo (BTW i'm not side lining the SP, but that was a niche aeroplane)

The 747 has made bucket loads of cash for those airlines that could work it hard...the likes of BA, LH and UA. It has also proven to be a liability for those that could not....SAA being a great example

If you haven't flown one yet, do it now....she will become as rare as an L1011 sooner than you think

Gas guzzler? No, just a grand old lady approaching her sunset years

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: trex8
Posted 2013-09-16 18:20:41 and read 4563 times.

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 59):
Quoting buckeyetech (Reply 58):
This might have been discussed already, but is it possible for a 747 to cruise on two engines? How much longer would a hop across the pond be on two engines, and would it really save a sufficient amount of fuel?

Yes, but it burns more fuel because you cruise lower and your dead engines cause more drag. A few years back a BA 744 flew LAX-LHR on 3 engines, but diverted to MAN for more fuel.

Wouldnt a four holer flying on two engines by regulations require an mandated emergency landing????

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: CALPSAFltSkeds
Posted 2013-09-16 18:43:24 and read 4512 times.

Since I don't see fuel burn on this thread how about this? Taken from Boeing's website and using UA'
s international configured aircraft for seat counts.

744
Max fuel 57285 gallons, max range 7260 = 7.89 Gallons per mile
UA 744 374 seats - 374 / 7.89 = 0.0211 gallons per ASM

772ER
max fuel 45220 gallons, max range 7725 = 5.85 gallons per mile
UA 772ER 258 seats - 258 / 5.85 = 0.02267 gallons per ASM

Shows the 744 as 7.46% more fuel efficient at capacity and max range with max fuel load. Of course, this is apple to oranges as to comparing these two aircraft types, but the 744 is probably not a gas guzzler if you can fill it and fly long haul flights.

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: warden145
Posted 2013-09-16 18:50:07 and read 4501 times.

Quoting shankly (Reply 61):
However, in my view the 747-400 is THE aircraft that made long haul travel affordable for us all.

]If you haven't flown one yet, do it now....she will become as rare as an L1011 sooner than you think

Gas guzzler? No, just a grand old lady approaching her sunset years

   VERY well put...thank you for your post  
Quoting LH707330 (Reply 59):
A few years back a BA 744 flew LAX-LHR on 3 engines, but diverted to MAN for more fuel.
Quoting trex8 (Reply 62):
Wouldnt a four holer flying on two engines by regulations require an mandated emergency landing????

I recall reading about that on BA's Wikipedia entry, but apparently it's since been edited out. IIRC there was a bit of a flap from the FAA about whether or not the captain should have continued the flight...the UK authorities didn't see a problem, but the FAA was not happy about it.

BTW, useless personal note  but my first international flight, a few years later, was on G-BNLG, the aircraft involved in this event (I'm not sure whether it warrants being called an "incident" or not)...

Looks like it happened in February 2005: 747-400 LAX-LHR 3 Engine Flight Report Now Out. (by JulianUK Jun 8 2006 in Tech Ops)

Also, http://articles.latimes.com/2005/mar/01/local/me-britair1

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: trex8
Posted 2013-09-16 19:38:11 and read 4420 times.

These cruise fuel burn figures used for calculations have been alluded to in other threads going bcak some years and are from a CX pilot and pertain to CXs fleet
A333 6000kg/hr
A343/772 6900
77W 8000
A346 8900
744 11100

from another thread (so conditions may be different)
747-8 9600

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: LH707330
Posted 2013-09-16 19:49:21 and read 4385 times.

Quoting trex8 (Reply 65):
These cruise fuel burn figures used for calculations have been alluded to in other threads going bcak some years and are from a CX pilot and pertain to CXs fleet
A333 6000kg/hr
A343/772 6900
77W 8000
A346 8900
744 11100

from another thread (so conditions may be different)
747-8 9600

Are those CX numbers ToC, ToD, or somewhere in the middle? It's a bit apples to oranges comparing a 333 to a 343 if it's ToC and the 343 is going an extra 2000 nm....

That 748i number and the CX 744 number don't seem to be apples to apples, either. IIRC the 748 has a ~2% improvement in block fuel and a capacity bump to get the advertised 16% efficiency gain, so it can't be 11k vs 9.6.

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: NWAROOSTER
Posted 2013-09-16 19:56:39 and read 4349 times.

Quoting warden145 (Reply 64):
Quoting LH707330 (Reply 59):
A few years back a BA 744 flew LAX-LHR on 3 engines, but diverted to MAN for more fuel.
Quoting trex8 (Reply 62):
Wouldnt a four holer flying on two engines by regulations require an mandated emergency landing????
Quoting warden145 (Reply 64):
I recall reading about that on BA's Wikipedia entry, but apparently it's since been edited out. IIRC there was a bit of a flap from the FAA about whether or not the captain should have continued the flight...the UK authorities didn't see a problem, but the FAA was not happy about it.

The captain would have needed to make the final call on the failed engine and to divert the aircraft to another US airport based on what information he had on the physical and operating condition of the aircraft after the failure of the one engine. Yes, the aircraft would have an asymmetry problem created by the failure of one engine. The aircraft would to have to been trimmed to correct for the drag created by the non operating engine. Rudder trim would have been one option and or the increasing of thrust on the engine on the wing of the failed engine. Fuel would have to been dumped or burned off if the aircraft was diverted before the aircraft reached its maximum landing weight. The flight crew had been in contact with British Airways maintenance about the situation and approved of the continuation of the flight.
There are many airports the aircraft could have landed at while flying over the United States. If the engine on the same wing failed partially or completely, the aircraft would have been diverted. They did take a chance by flying the aircraft over the Atlantic with an engine out. British Airways could of had a west bound aircraft made available to fly to what ever airport the 747 may have had to divert to after completing it's west bound flight. But that senerio did not happen. The aircraft made it to Manchester and the engine was changed and possibly the other engine on the same wing was put on a maintenance watch.   

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-09-16 20:17:57 and read 4315 times.

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 66):
Are those CX numbers ToC, ToD, or somewhere in the middle? It's a bit apples to oranges comparing a 333 to a 343 if it's ToC and the 343 is going an extra 2000 nm....

Here are the full numbers as provided by zeke:

747-400: 11,100kg per hour (9,000 to 13,000 across the flight)
777-300ER: 8,100kg per hour (6,500 to 10,500 across the flight)
777-200: 6,900kg per hour (8 hour flight time)
A340-600: 8,900kg per hour
A340-300: 6,900kg per hour (12 hour flight time)
A330-300: 6,000kg per hour (10 hour flight time)

He also noted that an A330-300 on a 4000nm sector burns 4 tons less fuel than a 777-200 on a 3800nm sector.



Quoting LH707330 (Reply 66):
That 748i number and the CX 744 number don't seem to be apples to apples, either. IIRC the 748 has a ~2% improvement in block fuel and a capacity bump to get the advertised 16% efficiency gain, so it can't be 11k vs 9.6.

The 9.6 ton figure is for the inaugural flight of LH416 between FRA and IAD on 01 June 2012.

Quote:
Midway through the flight, while cruising at 36,000ft, Capt Boje reported a combined fuel flow of 9.6t/h (at M0.843) from the four General Electric GEnx engines, with a ground speed of 479kt (886km/h) and a 20kt headwind.

378t TOW
296t LW
50t Payload (313 passengers and 20 crew)
80t Trip Fuel Burn
7h58m Trip Time

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: avek00
Posted 2013-09-16 20:54:55 and read 4224 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 43):
77w is the most widely used 744 replacement

I'd argue the most widely used 744 replacement is the 777-200ER. The 747 family -- including the -400 -- was bought every bit as much for range as for payload lift. When the 777 family came out, many operators that used the 747 for range steadily downsized to 777-200ERs over much of their networks, with 777-300ERs coming in later.

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: trex8
Posted 2013-09-17 15:09:22 and read 3638 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 68):
He also noted that an A330-300 on a 4000nm sector burns 4 tons less fuel than a 777-200 on a 3800nm sector.

OT bu tdoes anyone know if a 777A have less fuel burn (or more) than a heavier 772ER,just thinking that a late model 772ER may have had some aerodynamic, engine tweaks to improve fuel efficiency and overcome any weight penalty.

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-09-17 16:51:14 and read 3517 times.

Quoting trex8 (Reply 70):
OT bu tdoes anyone know if a 777A have less fuel burn (or more) than a heavier 772ER,just thinking that a late model 772ER may have had some aerodynamic, engine tweaks to improve fuel efficiency and overcome any weight penalty.

The 777-200ER is not much heavier than a 777-200 in terms of empty weight, but the TOW can be up to 50 tons higher and the engines are a fair bit more powerful.

Around 2007 Boeing developed a PiP for the 777-200, 777-200ER and 777-300 that reduced fuel burn by a bit over 1%.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aer...03_09/pdfs/AERO_Q309_article02.pdf

[Edited 2013-09-17 16:52:20]

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: Schweigend
Posted 2013-09-17 17:11:42 and read 3480 times.

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 63):
Since I don't see fuel burn on this thread how about this? Taken from Boeing's website and using UA'
s international configured aircraft for seat counts.

744
Max fuel 57285 gallons, max range 7260 = 7.89 Gallons per mile
UA 744 374 seats - 374 / 7.89 = 0.0211 gallons per ASM

772ER
max fuel 45220 gallons, max range 7725 = 5.85 gallons per mile
UA 772ER 258 seats - 258 / 5.85 = 0.02267 gallons per ASM

Shows the 744 as 7.46% more fuel efficient at capacity and max range with max fuel load. Of course, this is apple to oranges as to comparing these two aircraft types, but the 744 is probably not a gas guzzler if you can fill it and fly long haul flights.

Thanks for the info. It also might show why UA will be switching from the 744 to the 772ER for SFO and LAX trips to SYD.

With the full planes they already fly from S.F. and L.A. to Sydney, United should perform better with the 772ER than the 744 on those routes, likely getting rid of 116 junk fares (the difference in seat-count between the two types), increasing RASM, and offering pax a better experience than at present. Except for Zone A, of course.  

If UA needs more capacity, they can just add a second daily 772ER.

Neither do I think that restricted cargo will be a big deal here on the 772ER, as the 744 is also weight-restricted on the Oz route.

So far as I know, QF is the only 744ER operator -- whose a/c don't suffer weight-restrictions to LAX (but do to DFW). Too bad UA didn't get some of those, they'd probably be refurbishing them and planning on keeping them in their fleet for longer than the original 744.

On a personal note --

I just find the idea of going to Australia on anything without four engines and an upper deck...weird. Haven't done that since the old DC-10s from HNL and GUM.

Topic: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: sunrisevalley
Posted 2013-09-17 17:53:19 and read 3410 times.

Quoting 707lvr (Reply 33):
What I would like to know is which airplane burns more fuel on a 6,000 mile flight with 400 passengers, a Boeing 747-8 or an Airbus 380?

Using 420 passengers the fuel load for a A380 for a 6000nm sector is ~166.6t For a 744 ~144t. The A380 has a 90% burn of the total fuel. I would assume the 744 burn ratio would be similar.

Topic: RE: Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?
Username: Revelation
Posted 2013-09-18 10:18:06 and read 2836 times.

In

CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo (by LAXintl Sep 12 2013 in Civil Aviation)

we read with regard to 744:

Quote:

o 77W's great - 22% more efficient per payload tonne vs 744 - "unprofitable 747 route becomes a very profitable 777 route”
o Shanghai-based JV Air China Cargo (ACC) continued to bleed red ink - hopefully improve as 777F replace "gas-guzzling" 744. 6 more 77W in 2013, 8 in 2014 and 4 in 2015.
o Modest downgauge from 744 to 77W improved yield also.

And even as much as the 77W is being praised, we go on to read:

Quote:

o 777-9X "will achieve incredible efficiencies" - 20% lower block fuel burn than the 77W and 15% lower cash operating cost (COC) per seat.
o With 777-9X, CX is very likely to bypass VLA order.
o VLA - significant inherent financial risk
o 777-9X would strike the “sweet spot” between capacity growth and passenger yield as VLA risks cannibalising passenger yields as airlines use discounts to fill.

So even though CX is bringing on more 77Ws they already have a good idea of what is going to replace them.

In reply 6 of

Air France More Cuts Coming; Union Plan Strike (by mercure1 Sep 17 2013 in Civil Aviation)

we read:

Quote:

Company is set to announce 2,600 job cuts, alongside plans to phase out "costly fleet" of 747s by 2016.

So more evidence that the 744 is just no longer economically viable. It's had a good 20+ year run, time to move on...

Also #15 of the AF thread says "Just read on JOC that AF is planning to cut their 744-Fs, as well, leaving them with just their two 77Fs." so it seems AF will be out of the 744 business by 2016 or so.

[Edited 2013-09-18 10:38:15]


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/