Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
747ADV V 380  
User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1605 posts, RR: 2
Posted (10 years 4 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3846 times:

According to Boeing the 747ADV which is due to enter service in 2009 will have 19% lower trip costs and 3% lower seat costs than a 380 with 542 pax.

Source: ATWOnline.com

Ruscoe

31 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently onlineMauriceB From Netherlands, joined Aug 2004, 2491 posts, RR: 25
Reply 1, posted (10 years 4 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3792 times:

Before i believe anything i first want them to see flying. When the MD-11 was on paper it promised alot, it would have a lot of range, it would be a low fuel burner, now you see almost every Pax airline replaces the MD-11 with the 777 or A340 family




greetings maurice


User currently offlineAvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2474 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (10 years 4 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3769 times:

Strictly speaking, these airplanes won't be direct competitors. With only about 450 seats, it's hard for me to see how the 747-Adv.'s seat costs would be lower. On the other hand, since it weighs a heckuva lot less than an A388, I could see how the trip costs might be less. Of course, as stated, this can't be verified until BOTH are in service. At least, Boeing is trying to offer airlines an A380 alternative, if not a head to head opponent.

User currently offlineUnited Airline From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2001, 9210 posts, RR: 15
Reply 3, posted (10 years 4 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3580 times:

Perhaps more fuel efficient????

User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17173 posts, RR: 66
Reply 4, posted (10 years 4 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3568 times:

One can definitely make a 747Adv very fuel efficient, but the question is how much redesign will be made. Any change=higher cost. Do the customers want to pay for this when they can get an A380 instead? That's the €10 000 000 000 question.


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineNavion From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1015 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (10 years 4 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3558 times:

Actually Maurice, Boeing has been proved to be conservative in it's estimates unlike the old Mcdonnell Douglas. Don't forget, the MD11 situtation is totally different than Boeings situation and Boeings ability to get performance out of new designs has been proven, and is likely due to much more sophisticated engineering and computer modeling advances over what McDD had almost 15 years ago. If you look at the 717, 737NG, 777, 777ER/LR, they all have met and actually exceeded their initial estimates. Furthermore, all of the designs have been further refined as part of the normal product improvement cycle. I don't think you have to doubt Boeings ability to deliver these figures. Boeings skills are pretty impressive and dependable.

User currently offlineJamesvf84 From Switzerland, joined Sep 2003, 129 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (10 years 4 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3557 times:

Regarding the redesign, will there be any visual modifications such as raked wing tips or fuselage extension? Any ideas? This is implying the 747ADV of course Smile/happy/getting dizzy

[Edited 2004-08-19 14:59:32]

User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1001 posts, RR: 51
Reply 7, posted (10 years 4 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3412 times:

Regarding the redesign, will there be any visual modifications such as raked wing tips or fuselage extension? Any ideas?

Yes... most likely a 70 inch stretch around the business class cabin area, redesigned engine pylons and nacells, and the winglets would probably be eliminated and replaced with a raked tip.


User currently offlineDl021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 8, posted (10 years 4 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3416 times:

Navion Remember that the 717 was an MD design and that the MD-11 was a compromise over the original aircraft MD wanted to build (MD-12, which later became the A-380, if you don't believe, look at the pictures
http://cardatabase.net/modifiedairlinephotos/search/photo_search.php?id=00000346 ).

The MD-11 suffered from a rushed design and delivery schedule that precluded adequate refinement of the aircraft design. Other MD aircraft operated so well and efficiently that even today many airlines still use them over newer models. The DC8/9/10 were tremendous successes as designs, and sold well. Boeing either beat them to the market or outsold them at every turn, which contributed to the decision making that led to the MD-11. They wanted safe (financially speaking, physical safety is always desired by all manufacturers) and fast (to the market) and suffered for it.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8474 posts, RR: 9
Reply 9, posted (10 years 4 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3376 times:

I keep thinking back to the fact that the 777 didn't replace the need for a 767 size plane and, I believe, that the 380 will not replace the need for a 747 size plane. Of the two companies B is in a far better position to sell in that size slot because the 380 is engineered to be stretched. (What is A going to do - stretch the 340 again?)

While A has picked up a lot of orders for the 380 they have generally come from airlines that already have the 747. Ordering more 747s was not the issue for them at that time. By the time the 747 ADV arrives it may well be the main need.

B is also in a nice position because the freighter side can help pay for development of the pax version. That is somewhat unique, but B won't complain!

Will be fun to watch.


User currently offlineSNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3247 posts, RR: 22
Reply 10, posted (10 years 4 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3146 times:

Do the customers want to pay for this when they can get an A380 instead?

It depends on how many passangers they are planning to fly in it. If they do not need to fly
550 passangers, why buy the A380 and not buy a lighter 747ADV and pay less per trip?

With only about 450 seats, it's hard for me to see how the 747-Adv.'s seat costs would be lower.

A possible reason I have read on why the A380 is inherently heavy compared to,
say, the 747ADV is the fact that it needs the floor between the two levels which
stretches throughout the length of the fuselage. Given the number of passangers that it
needs to accommodate at the top level, this floor needs to be reasonably sturdy.
This is less the case for the 747ADV, as the top level is smaller in size and length and,
hence, weight. I have to admit I'm no expert, but this has seemed like a plausible
explanation...

Edit: if someone would like to argue against this I'd love to hear from you!

Tony


[Edited 2004-08-20 05:07:49]


Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
User currently offlineAvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2474 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (10 years 4 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3091 times:

Actually, SNATH, Boeing has claimed that the A380 is structurally inefficient in using the full length of the fuselage for the upper deck, saying it exacts a severe weight penalty; this is one reason the 747 upper deck wasn't extended to the tail. Airbus countered that the volumetric efficiency gained makes the weight penalty justifiable but it's true that the A380 is quite a bit heavier than even Boeing's shelved 2000-2001 747X-Stretch, a design with nominally only 50 seats less capacity. This also brings me back to my earlier speculation that beefing up the A380's structure so much in the beginning to make it relatively easier to do a stretch later on, might not have been the best strategy in terms of selling the baseline -800 and the proposed -700 shrink, although it was the most cost effective approach for the program. That has made it easier for Boeing to keep the weight of all proposed 747 derivitives well below that of all A380s, despite its dated design and lack of composites. I've got to think that despite the lack of FBW and other newer tech features, a fair number of airlines will go for the 747 Adv. if it delivers on efficiency, especially if they don't need 500+ seats.

User currently offlineSNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3247 posts, RR: 22
Reply 12, posted (10 years 4 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3080 times:

AvObserver (hi again!),

Thanks for the additional info and for setting me straight!

Tony



Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1001 posts, RR: 51
Reply 13, posted (10 years 4 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3070 times:

A possible reason I have read on why the A380 is inherently heavy compared to, say, the 747ADV is the fact that it needs the floor between the two levels which stretches throughout the length of the fuselage.

I'm not so sure as to that. For one thing, the A380 makes extensive use of new materials like the GLARE (aluminum/fiberglass laminate) in many places to reduce weight, and it was designed using digital CAD software which improves structural efficency. The major weight gains came from two things IMO-

1. Like AvObserver said, the A380-800 was designed with a stretch A380-900 in mind, seating 700+, and thus has a much stonger wing and centerbox design than would be necessary for just a 500 passenger aircraft.

2. Singapore Airlines requested (read demanded) larger engines and a tweaked wing profile to reduce noise, allowing 24-hour flights without restriction into LHR. These engines and noise reducing features added several tons in unexpected weight, which compounded the already heavy (though planned) weight of the A388.

Either way, a shrunk A340-700 would need to go on a serious diet if it were to go up against the much lighter 747-Adv.


User currently offlineIndianguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (10 years 4 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3060 times:

How many times b4 has boeing made a big deal about an imaginary project? Remember the Sonic Cruiser? This 747Adv is yet another paper tiger from the Boeing stable. I ll beleive it when i see it flying!

-Roy


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1001 posts, RR: 51
Reply 15, posted (10 years 4 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3039 times:

How many times b4 has boeing made a big deal about an imaginary project?

Well the last time was the 7E7... oh wait  Insane

This 747Adv is yet another paper tiger from the Boeing stable. I ll beleive it when i see it flying!

I'm not going to stop you, but people were saying the same thing regarding the 7E7 circa Februrary 2003. This 747 proposal is probably the most sound to date as it builds off the 7E7 and 747-400QXLR, but even if it fails, that is nothing unsuprising in this industry. Try reading into the history of some other aircraft, the 777 saga makes the 747-X scene look like an indicisive couple looking for a resteraunt-

The 777 begining-
http://airtransportbiz.free.fr/Aircraft/767-X.html

The looong history of the 777-200LR/300ER-
http://airtransportbiz.free.fr/Aircraft/777X-1.html


User currently offlineAvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2474 posts, RR: 9
Reply 16, posted (10 years 4 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3036 times:

Take it easy, Indianguy! The other projects were all serious efforts that just didn't garner sufficient airline interest to launch. It doesn't mean that Boeing wasn't serious about developing them, as you seem to imply. BCA is in talks with airlines about this new 747 variant, as it was with the others. If there's enough favorable interest, it'll be offered, if not, it will disappear like the others, simple as that. You wouldn't at this point suggest that the 7E7 is also a 'paper tiger', even though it's not yet flying, would you?

User currently offlineIndianguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (10 years 4 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2824 times:

Well considering its terrible record at grandiose announcements followed by pathetic volte-face, I wouldnt be surprised if both the 747adv and the 7E7 are both dumped once they fulfil their role of holding off airbus orders.



User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1001 posts, RR: 51
Reply 18, posted (10 years 4 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2735 times:

Well considering its terrible record at grandiose announcements followed by pathetic volte-face, I wouldnt be surprised if both the 747adv and the 7E7 are both dumped once they fulfil their role of holding off airbus orders.

Yeah... the 7E7 with its 50 firm orders, 12 publically announced MoIs, and rumors of scores more in the works is really going to get cancelled.  Insane Boeing has already lined up most of the major subcontractors, awarded engine contracts, avionics contracts, systems contracts, and material contracts. It doesn't get any more real than that buddy.

Boeing in all honesty can't cancel the 7E7 after carriers on just about every continent on the planet, including LH for god sakes, has expressed some degree of interest and/or placed an order for the type. It would be about as rational as shutting down the 737NG line at this very moment. The 7E7 is going to be a huge money-maker and competitive tool for Boeing.


User currently offlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1911 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (10 years 4 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2598 times:

I'm still hoping for the new wing for 747A... That would give me something to look forward to.
As far as sales go, I'm surprised Boeing is still using good old "based on international routes out of USA" approach, while they know well most of new 747A sales would come from Asia... The only US carrier I'd see as a customer would probably be Northwest. Forget United, unless financial miracle happens...



Now get your f***ing Jumbo Jet off my airport!!! - AC/DC "Ain't No Fun To Be a Millionaire"
User currently offlineAvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2474 posts, RR: 9
Reply 20, posted (10 years 4 months 3 days ago) and read 2530 times:

An all-new wing is not in the cards, according to articles I've seen, due to costs. It will be a significantly modified version of the existing wing with a span increase owing to wing extensions and the raked wingtips. Agreed, Asia will be the biggest customer, as will likely prove to be the case with the A380, as well. Indianguy, I'm surprised at your rhetoric. A few years of BCA product indecisiveness and you assume they're no longer capable of bringing out a new offering. As DfwRev put it, the 7E7 has orders and good prospects for many more. All BCA needs for the 747 Adv. is launch orders, if it gets them, that airplane will also become reality. I think that Boeing's history of product development speaks for itself; no reason to assume it's no longer the case.  Yeah sure

User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 21, posted (10 years 4 months 3 days ago) and read 2527 times:

The other projects were all serious efforts that just didn't garner sufficient airline interest to launch.

Actually, its been widely held by many analysts that the Sonic Cruiser was a stalling tactic to divert the interest of the industry while the 7E7 was being conceived.

N


User currently offlineB2707SST From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 1369 posts, RR: 59
Reply 22, posted (10 years 4 months 3 days ago) and read 2492 times:

Actually, its been widely held by many analysts that the Sonic Cruiser was a stalling tactic to divert the interest of the industry while the 7E7 was being conceived.

Possible, but I tend to doubt it. I did a few interviews and facility tours with Boeing while the Sonic Cruiser was still on the drawing board, and the design offices in Everett were chock full of Sonic Cruiser material: desk models, an 8-foot floor model, paintings on the wall, whiteboards covered with design specs, program milestones, and performance targets, memos and definition papers all over the place. I still have a Sonic Cruiser tie tack, wall poster, range charts, and other memorabilia around here somewhere. Friends of mine at Boeing were surprised and somewhat disappointed when the Sonic Cruiser was shelved, but they've come around on the 7E7.

It's conceivable the Sonic Cruiser concept was just a big trial balloon, but Boeing spent an awful lot of money and trouble to convince its own employees as well as Airbus, the airlines, and the media that the concept was genuine.

--B2707SST



Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
User currently offlineAvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2474 posts, RR: 9
Reply 23, posted (10 years 4 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2474 times:

"Actually, its been widely held by many analysts that the Sonic Cruiser was a stalling tactic to divert the interest of the industry while the 7E7 was being conceived".

I'm aware of this thinking, Neil, but I say it doesn't hold water. I don't think Boeing would deliberately set out to make itself look like it was waffling about which new product concept to bring out. While the Sonic Cruiser was certainly used as a marketing tool to divert attention away from the A380, I do believe Boeing was earnestly trying to garner interest in a faster but still economical airplane, trying to get back a bit to its earlier pioneering spirit. In a truly healthy economic climate, the SC might've made it, business travelers would have welcomed it, even if vacation travelers were lukewarm to indifferent. This would have been the first meaningful, if modest, gain in transport speed, discounting the highly costly to operate Concorde, since the mid-1970s when the 747SP became the fastest subsonic commercial airliner. I do think Boeing was honestly trying to advance the state of the art and was merely stymied by recession, particularly after 9/11.


User currently offlineIndianguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (10 years 4 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2312 times:


Yeah... the 7E7 with its 50 firm orders, 12 publically announced MoIs, and rumors of scores more in the works is really going to get cancelled.

Just how many firm orders, publicly announced MoI's and rumors did the Sonic Cruiser stunt get Boeing before they cancelled it?

Just curious!

-Roy


25 Ha763 : Just how many firm orders, publicly announced MoI's and rumors did the Sonic Cruiser stunt get Boeing before they cancelled it? Zero. It was never app
26 Post contains images Solnabo : I dont belive in any more of 747......ADV/F/ER or SMURF!! They (Boeing) have to begin from scratch like the 7e7. My 2öre Micke//SE
27 GREATANSETT : Solnabo-I agree 100%, the 747 has had its run and now its time to gracefully move aside.
28 Bill142 : I think the 747Adv is just a pipe dream. Idon't really see this one eventuating. Its sad to say but the product life cycle of the 747 is coming to an
29 Leelaw : IMO, if and when the advanced technologies of the 7e7 are successfully introduced into marketplace, these technologies will quickly become the standar
30 Ruscoe : I would not get too carried away about the demise of the 747. The 747 and 380 do not directly compete, and Airbus is not like;y to have a product in t
31 Alessandro : I wonder if Boeing dare to manufacture a B747 with FBW? That would be an improvement, currently only the B777 with FBW among Bs current passenger plan
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...
380 Versus 748 In Terms Of Sales posted Wed Dec 6 2006 20:16:14 by BOEING747400
Airbus 380 To Get Approval Next Tueday posted Wed Dec 6 2006 17:37:18 by LHStarAlliance
380: Route Proving Mission Finished: What's Next? posted Thu Nov 30 2006 15:49:53 by A520
Qatar: Airbus Will Give Us Free 380 And Money posted Tue Nov 7 2006 17:02:02 by Jimyvr
Zurich (ZRH) Is Getting Ready For The A 380 posted Thu Oct 26 2006 13:55:08 by ZRH
747 Outsold 380 Since 2000. posted Wed Oct 25 2006 10:22:56 by Iwok
A-380 Wake Turbulence Seperation posted Mon Oct 9 2006 23:38:36 by KC135TopBoom
QF 380 News Story posted Wed Oct 4 2006 02:02:41 by Ken777
In Defense Of The A-380 posted Fri Sep 29 2006 18:05:54 by JAAlbert
China Deliveries For The A-380 posted Mon Sep 18 2006 17:10:07 by DLPMMM