Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing to end 747 production???  
User currently offlinejbrezmes From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (15 years 5 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 2026 times:

I'm not sure at all, but I've read a comment on the internet that an important economics magazine (I think it's "THE ECONOMIST" but I'm not sure) has stated that Boeing is considering to end 747 production (once all the firm orders they have now are delivered) in favor of longer-range versions of the 777-300 since they much more economic to operate.

Has anybody else heard this rumours? At least they are well in contradiction to other posts on this site about Boeing plans for a new 747-500 with greater range and payload.

By the way, is the cost per passenger mile higher on a 747-400 or on a 777-200/300? I though the 747-400 was more economical on longer and denser routes, although I know the 777-300 has a 40% lower cost than a classic 747 with comparable range and payload capacity.

Regards


Jesus

21 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineBryanG From United States of America, joined May 1999, 431 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (15 years 5 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 2026 times:

I'm sure that depends on whether Boeing has any success getting the ETOPS rules repealed. That's one of the things that is limiting the 777 right now. For example, when Beoing was peddling the 777 to Singapore Airlines, they had to work hard to convince them that the airport on Midway Island would be kept open forever. That would have been a necessary ETOPS-mandated diversion point. In the end they didn't choose the 777.

If any airlines still have reservations about using twins ove the Pacific, they'll probably be cured by watching the big 4 US airlines (DAL, AA, UAL, CO) profitably flying theirs on Pacific routes.

I'd hate to see the 747 go, but 777-class planes are definitely going to dominate the markets in the future.


User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4454 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (15 years 5 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 2026 times:

Boeing end production of the greatest selling widebody of all time right after they announce the 747-500? Highly unlikely. As for the 777-Xs they sure don't sell well so I don't think we have to worry about twins taking over the pacific anytime soon. US carriers fly twins over the atlantic but you don't see European airlines doing that.


"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlinefly777ual From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4512 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (15 years 5 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 2026 times:

I've heard from many airlines (UA, CX, etc.) that on long haul routes, the 747 is much more economical to operate than the 777. I think that it would be VERY sad if Boeing ended the 747 line. Also, with all this talk of the 'super planes' it would be MUCH more cost effective if they built it based on a 747 frame, so I do think that the 747 will be around a lot longer than until the current orders are delivered.

fly777ual


User currently offlineMD-11 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (15 years 5 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2028 times:

CX747, there are plenty of European twins flying across the Atlantic. Finnair 757, BA 757, BA 767, LOT 767, SAS 767, some A310s, Air France 777, Aer Lingus A330, Swissair A330, hmm, am I missing something else...

User currently offlineMirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3125 posts, RR: 14
Reply 5, posted (15 years 5 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2027 times:

CX747 wrote:

"US carriers fly twins over the atlantic but you don't see European airlines doing that."

For your information, TAP Air Portugal flies from Lisbon to your country with A310.

Where did you get that information?


User currently offlineAvroRJ From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 5 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (15 years 5 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2027 times:

Nearly every european airline flies twins transatlantic:

SAS: 767-300
BA: 777, 767, 757
Austrian: 310, 330
Swissair: 330
Air France: 777
Alitalia: 767
LOT: 767
CSA: 310
Aer Lingus: 330

(this is all off the top of my head)


User currently offlineItsabouttime From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (15 years 5 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2026 times:

The 747 is redundant in today's market. The 777-300 can carry about as many passengers, about just as far, just as fast, and it does it feeding just two engines. In the late 60's, it was not possible to fly 400+ passengers into the air with two engines. Engines weren't that powerful or that realible. They are today. It's time for Boeing to start producing a new jumbo for the demand of the next century. If they want to keep a 4-engined jumbo in production, they might as well make it big enough to carry 800 people. In which case we are no longer talking about a 747.

User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4454 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (15 years 5 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2027 times:

I meant that many European airlines continue to operate quads and tri jets while American carriers only use (Not All) twins. As for twins being more economical, here is what a Boeing had to say at their ETOPS meeting. "Boeing officials argue that twin-engine aircraft inherently have lower operating costs, often citing a 7% savings for a twin engine aircraft versus a four engine one. But they acknowledge that the figure is bsed ona hypothetical comparison of two and four engine aircraft of equal size--of which there are NONE. They also note tht the savings is eroded by the twins requirement to carry extra fuel for ETOPS flights." So, operating a 777-300 on the same route as a 747-400 or A340-300 does not mean you are saving money. This is from the twin lovers at Boeing!!!!


"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlineNavion From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1012 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (15 years 5 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 2028 times:

Let's not forget, no aircraft (other than specialized cargo aircraft such as the AN124 or C5) can carry as much as far as the 747-400 either freighter or passenger. Some other aircraft in production or on the drawing boards may go farther but they won't carry either the passengers or payload as far in one trip. I think the recent orders attest to the market segment which is still alive. By the way, if the segment is what is less viable, why the A3XX project?

User currently offlineMirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3125 posts, RR: 14
Reply 10, posted (15 years 5 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 2026 times:

The A3XX is a conceipt. It will be available when the market is ready to support its launch, not before.
When the market is receiptive to a 555 seat airliner, Airbus will have the answer, a new aircraft, not a redesigned one.


User currently offline767-400ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (15 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2026 times:

Just a note from "itsabouttime", both 747-400 and 777-300X are almost equal to the fuel consumption.

User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29792 posts, RR: 58
Reply 12, posted (15 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2026 times:

You know I keep hearing so much about how some designs are simply old tech and therefore usless and how the newer designs are so much better.

My grandfather had a good quote about technology, I belive at the time I was going on about how great it was while trying to get the 12:00 to stop flashing on the VCR. He said, "Despite all of this new technology, We still use shovels to dig holes".



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineMirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3125 posts, RR: 14
Reply 13, posted (15 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2026 times:

Without new designs, you still would fly on 707's, Comet's, DC-3's, DC-8's, Caravelle's...

Time doesn't stop...the VCR to do a fine work, can't have the clock flashing on the 12:00.


User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4454 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (15 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2026 times:

How will Airbus be able to make this A3XX after posting a $204 MILLION dollar loss?


"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4454 posts, RR: 5
Reply 15, posted (15 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2026 times:

Think about the 747-500 and A3XX this way. The 747-500 is cheaper to design, cheaper to produce and cheaper to purchase. It carries 100 more passengers than the 400 with a 500 naut. mile increase in range. It shares many of the same parts as the 400 but differs with a highly efficient wing (Thanks to the MD-11) wing and newer efficient engines. The landing gear is also different as it it like a 777s. The A3XX is a humoungous design to financial back, highly expensive to produce, and much more expensive to purchase. It carries 555? pax which is a little bit more than the 747-500. It costs more to operate and can not be flown to all of the worlds major international airports because it can not be physically handled their. I think the logical choice here for the airlines is without a doubt the 747-500.


"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlineAA727 From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 124 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (15 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2026 times:

CX747, it is unlikely that Boeing makes any further version of the 747. Remember a couple of years ago they had thought of the 500 and 600 variants? They stopped the project because they didn't receive any order for them. They figured that there was no point to produce the 747-500 and 600. It is possible, and I strongly beleive, that the 747 production is going to end in a few years. Boeing's best widebody sellers are the 767 and 777.
There is one thing that sure: neither American, nor Delta, nor Continental will ever have 747's again.
MD-11 and Mirage are right, I agree with them when they mention all the Europeans flying twins across the Atlantic. Well let me mention one more, Sabena flies the A330 from Brussels to Boston. Anyway, what I'm saying is that across the Atlantic you will see more twins that quads, from both sides. Even across the Pacific you will see 777's gradually replacing 747's. Why do you think that the FAA has extended the ETOPS rule up to 207 minutes? Yes of course, 747-400's will be around for a long time, but you have to admit that if Boeing decides to stop producing the 747 it would be a wise decision from them. I'm sure that'll happen soon even if Asia recovers from its economic crisis. They are concentrating rather on the 767 and 777, those are the two airplanes that are gonna be successful in the long haul market.
I don't want to make you feel sad, I have nothing against the 747, I do think it's a beautiful bird but the truth is the 767 and 777 will have more success because are more economical to operate. It is to me likely that soon Boeing will take the decision to end the 747 production like like they did with the MD-11.

Ben Soriano
Brussels Belgium


User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4454 posts, RR: 5
Reply 17, posted (15 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2026 times:

Please read Aviation Week and Space Techonologies latest addition and you will get all the information your little heart desires on the 747-500 and the 777-300. How many twins does Virgin operate across the atlantic a day? How many twins to quads does BA operate across the atlantic per day? I am not going to get sad I just find it funny that as Boeing itroduces the 747-500 we have people saying that the production line will close down pretty soon.

P.S. About the new design needed for the 747. Just remember Boeing can pull the 747-500 (Is it the 600 now?:)) and the 747-600 off the shelf any time it wants.



"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlinePhilly Phlyer From United States of America, joined May 1999, 317 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (15 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 2026 times:

CX747

For your information, BA is replacing its 747s with 777s on its higher density north Atlantic routes. In Boston, New York and Philly, all the high density routes covered by 747s two years ago are now (or soon switching to) done with 777s. Two engines and a two person cockpit save too much money.

As to VA, did Branson order 330s and 340s or only 340s? If he ordered only 340s, he may have made a big mistake. AA, BA, CO, DAL, NW, SAS, UA and US either are using twins on this route or are switching as soon as their new orders come in.

I agree that I hate to see the 747 go, but the movement is to twins. I don't believe the 747 line shut-down will happen in the next several years but more likely in five to ten years. This is the primary reason that I'm pessimistic that the A3XX will get built. Airbus might hae been smarter to design the A3XX as a huge twin if they really wanted to have a market big enough to sell it. The market for the super-sized four engine jet is shrinking.

My guess is that Boeing eventually will phase out the 747 in favor of the 767, 777 and eventually (10 to 15 years down the road) a SST or HST that seats 300+ and is designed for very fast ultra long-range routes.



User currently offlineBritish Airways From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (15 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2026 times:

He only ordered 340. And that was no mistake!!!
Iain


User currently offlinePhilly Phlyer From United States of America, joined May 1999, 317 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (15 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2026 times:

If he was ordering 340s to use on ultra-long routes, why not order 330s to use on the shorter routes (ie: north Atlantic)? Why pay for fuel and maintenance for four engines when two are sufficient? That's my point and I maintain if he puts all his eggs in the 340 basket and didn't get options for 330s, he made a mistake. Look at the approach his competitors are taking.

You and I will just agree to disagree on this one.


User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4454 posts, RR: 5
Reply 21, posted (15 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2026 times:

Boeing itself thougth has said that twins are more efficient on many routes that we are talking about though.


"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Boeing to end 747 production??? posted Fri Mar 12 1999 15:25:23 by jbrezmes
Boeing To End Production Of 757 In Late 2004 posted Thu Oct 16 2003 23:06:10 by Alexchao
Boeing To Ramp Up Production posted Wed Jul 28 2004 16:59:23 by BCAInfoSys
Lufthansa Urges Boeing To Stretch 747 posted Tue Feb 25 2003 16:35:56 by N79969
Boeing To Move 757 Production To Wichita posted Fri Mar 23 2001 20:08:22 by B757300
Boeing 747 Production May Not End Anytime Soon posted Wed Nov 26 2003 01:27:38 by Aloha717200
747 Production To End? posted Fri Apr 30 1999 13:41:48 by CX747
WSJ: Kawasaki To End A321 Body Panel Production posted Thu Aug 3 2006 17:34:32 by N328KF
Back To Work: Boeing Machinists End Strike posted Fri Sep 30 2005 06:55:29 by JetMaster
Boeing Decides In Principle To Build 747 ADV posted Fri Jul 1 2005 09:46:15 by Keesje