Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing Releases 747X Data  
User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4556 posts, RR: 5
Posted (15 years 12 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2079 times:

Boeing recently released their future 747 family data in this weeks Aviation and Space Technology Weekly. Here is what the article said.

"Boeing has launched a major campaign to lure key Asian airlines away from the proposed Airbus A3XX with three improved 747 offerings that promise operating costs as much as 24% below the 747-400, depending upon the mission."

"The Boeing sales pitch stresses its stretched 747 will have similar operating costs as the A3XX but lower acquisition costs, put by one Qantas official at almost 30 million less."

"The first Boeing derivative, to be available in 2002, is a more capable 747-400, dubbed the 747-400X. It would have the same dimensions as the current aircraft but an increase of 35,000lb in maximum take off weight to 910,000lb. This aircraft would use the strengthened 747-400F wing and would have an additional 500 mi of range to 8,850 statute miles, or carry 15,000lb more payload, Boeing said. Extra fuel would be carried in two fuel tanks, each holding 3,180 U.S. gallons, located forward of the wing box where protable water is now stored. The -400X also would receive a 777 styled interior plus some flight deck upgrades. The enhancements would allow full payload performance in all winds from Singapore to London."

"While the -400X provides valuable performance improvements, the real competition to the A3XX comes from adding a highly modified wing to two other potential 747 derivatives, called the 747X Stretch and the 747X. They could be available in the first half of 2005 --six months ahead of the A3XX, according to Boeing officials."

"As envisioned, the modified wing would have an increased span of 17.5ft, largely due to a relofted and extended inboard section to a total of 228ft. 11in. It would incorporate 777 wing aerodynamics. Other improvements include: simpler, double slotted flaps; drooped ailerons for takeoff and a trailing edge wedge on the outboard wing. These refinements would lift teh rewinged 747's top speed from Mach 0.85 to 0.86. The higher capacity 747X Stretch would accomodate 504 passengers and have a range of 8,980 statute miles. It has attracted the most interest from airlines, according to Roundhill."

"The final model, the 747X, would have a passenger capcity of 430 and a range of 10,330 statute miles. It would carry 18 more passengers than the 747-400 due to a slight fuselage length increase associated with the updated wing's larger wing box. The 747X's range, slightly more than the 777-200LR, would be ideal for routes such as Singapore-New York/Los Angeles or Dallas-Sydney nonstop, Boeing said. Maximum takeoff weight for both models with the modified wing would climb to 1,043,000lb., which also could improve payload capability."

"Engine choice for the 747X and 747X Stretch would be either the Rolls Royce Trent 600 or the Pratt & Whitney/General Electric Engine Alliance GP 7000, each rated at 68,000lb. of thrust. All models would incorporate a 777 style cabin with new treatment also for the upper deck."

Well, there you have it. We have speculated on what Boeing's response would be to the A3XX and now we have some numbers to chew on. The 24% better operating costs over the 747-400 is interesting to me as the A3XX has been found to only have 8-12% better costs. This data was compiled by Qantas when the evaluated the A3XX for their fleet some months ago. Well, this sure will be an interesting few months.

"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
44 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
User currently offlineDeltaAir From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1094 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (15 years 12 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1773 times:

Lower operating costs and $30 million dollars cheaper? Airbus is up against a 30 year old aircraft, looks like the new kid on the block is about to be taught a lesson, maybe.

User currently offlineCapt.Fantastic From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 857 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (15 years 12 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1758 times:

Very well put Delta Air.

I just read this article this morning in AW&ST, and I have to say that I was very pleased with what I saw. There's an old saying that says: "If you mess with the bull, you'll get the horns!" I think this applies in this case. Boeing will likely have the upper hand in this one. Its going to be intersting.  


User currently offlineCwapilot From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1166 posts, RR: 15
Reply 3, posted (15 years 12 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1754 times:

Here we see the difference between developing a "dream ship" aircraft and then trying to push it to airlines, and sitting down and biting the bullet with serious development work directly with airline decision makers. It seems as though everything Qantas has been asking for, and more, has been answered now by Boeing. This would certainly lock up the ultra-long haul market with the 777X family, and now these! Did the article specify if the pax #'s are in two or three classes? I would assume 3 classes.

Southside Irish...our two teams are the White Sox and whoever plays the Cubs!
User currently offlineBoeing747-400 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (15 years 12 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1730 times:

CX747, Deltair, Catp.Fantastic, and CWApilot, I couldn't agree with you more!!  !!



User currently offlineBoeing747-400 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (15 years 12 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1712 times:

By the way, is this article on the web somewhere?

User currently offlineCstarU From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (15 years 12 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1719 times:

It's pretty much stated in the first post...go to the Aviation Week and Space Technology Website at http://www.aviationnow.com ...click on publications.

User currently offlineBoeing747-400 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (15 years 12 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1701 times:


User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4556 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (15 years 12 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1700 times:

Well, I wouldn't say that it is going to happen, YET. The article was definately an eye opener and it sure will be interesting to see how the airlines react to the news. On one hand there is a definate amount of PR that ordering an A3XX will bring to an airline. While this PR may interest us Aviation enthusiasts and some head honchos, the real deal begins when the bird is operating day in and day out. No amount of PR can make an aircraft more profitable to operate. While you may be able to taught that you operate an A3XX, your competitor will have the same "type" of aircraft that you do with the same operating costs, a lower acquisition cost and commonality with exisiting 747 airframes along with 777 airframes. What I am trying to say is, when the day is done, ECONOMICS is the king. Tennis courts and gyms may be nice but in reality I highly doubt it will ever happen. While these designs are obviously not "frozen", they show that Boeing has again demonstrated its capabilities in taking a well known and proven aircraft, modifying it and making it an even better one. It also looks as if these aircraft have been the deal makers in the QF 777-200ER/LR order.

"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlineBoeing747-400 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (15 years 12 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1688 times:

If the A3XX happens, most likely, the 747X will too. We'll have to see!



User currently offlineFleet Service From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 623 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (15 years 12 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 1692 times:

You know of course the Airbus cultists are going to have a fit right?

Yes, I actually *do* work for an airline,how about you?
User currently offlineUdo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (15 years 12 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1668 times:

Oh my GOD!!!! That will mean the end of the A3XX and the end of Airbus....oh, no, now we have FIGURES there won't be any hope left...
And especially after losing Qantas, one of AI's best customers, we will lose all...

By the way, claiming now to know how much money can be saved by the operation of any B747X compared to the A3XX is like predicting the weather for the 4. January of 2377.


User currently offlineAvion From Bouvet Island, joined May 1999, 2205 posts, RR: 6
Reply 12, posted (15 years 12 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1656 times:

I say the A3XX brought us the 747X. Without the A3XX the 747X would have never happened and so the 747 lives on.

"If you mess with the bull you'll get the horns". What a load of crap. Boeing IS NOT the almighty power nor is airbus. The 747X and A3XX will bring problems to the other manufactures counterparts.


User currently offlineAb.400 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (15 years 12 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1642 times:

Funny how Boeing was talking loud about no market for Superjumbos and now they qickly grab out their old plans to even join this market.

User currently offlineGerardo From Spain, joined May 2000, 3481 posts, RR: 27
Reply 14, posted (15 years 12 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1633 times:

What I find really amazing, is, that you guys believe EVERYTHING coming from the PR-department of Boeing. When Airbus published its numbers, nobody seemed to believe them. And now?

Question: on which routes and which payload does Boeing claim to have those marvellous economics????

Boeing needs to do whatever they can, to prevent airlines from ordering the A3XX. And they show now, how desperate they are.

My 0.02


dominguez(dash)online(dot)ch ... Pushing the limits of my equipment
User currently offlineHmmmm... From Canada, joined May 1999, 2114 posts, RR: 5
Reply 15, posted (15 years 12 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1630 times:

This data amounts only to minor improvements over range and passenger payload. Eighteen passengers more? Give me a break. The A3XX will offer 600-700 seats if it offers one. Boeing can not steal the thunder of a new class in transportation simply by putting 18 more seats up high and another pallet of luggage down below on a 30 year-old plane. That's pathetic. Sounds like the frantic thrashing of a drowning man.

We...can...squeeze ......in...two ...more...seats..please....buy our....plane....please... we.. beg... you!.....

An optimist robs himself of the joy of being pleasantly surprised
User currently offline777x From United States of America, joined Dec 2014, 432 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (15 years 12 months 2 days ago) and read 1605 times:

Actually, I think you need to read the post once more, there are 2 proposed variants, one seating only 18 passengers more (for a total of 430) with greater range than the current -400, and a stretch version seating 504 pax.

my 2c

User currently offlineUdo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (15 years 12 months 2 days ago) and read 1605 times:

That is the point: Boeing will bulid the B747X just because Airbus forces them to do so with the launch of the A3XX.
The same was about the A300: No A300, and Boeing still would sell their B707s.
The same was about the A320: No A320, and Boeing would still sell their B737 classics
The same was about the A340: No A340 and there won't be any B777s around that early and in those numbers.
The same about the A332: No A332, and Boeing would still offer the old B763 instead of the B764

B747X? The same story.

Airbus goes ahead with new projects and by that forces Boeing to develop or re-design their planes. And there still are some fools who think Boeing develops new planes just for fun or because they want to do the airlines a favour...haha


User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4556 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (15 years 12 months 2 days ago) and read 1603 times:

As stated above, there are currently 3 versions on the drawing board being offered to the airlines. The model that you are talking about is more of a 747-400 replacement than a Super Jumbo. This particular model is better suited to go head to head with the A340-500/600 along with complimenting the 777-200/300 LR and ERs.

"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlineCwapilot From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1166 posts, RR: 15
Reply 19, posted (15 years 12 months 2 days ago) and read 1602 times:

Are Ab.400 & Udo the same person, or did they just roll out of the same factory? Where to begin??!!

Firstly, I guess both of you will need to read the article over a few more times....looks like you don't get it. Regarding performance numbers, Boeing releases very conservative numbers as a normal business practice. Why release rosy numbers and have them turn out to be wrong, like the A3XX numbers. Boeing numbers are consistently met or exceeded, reference the 717. So, if anything, the economics will be even better than these estimates.

Regarding the so-called super-jumbo market, if you will notice, 2 of the variants are the same size (roughly) as the current 747-400. Hardly a superjumbo market admission. The other 504 pax varient provides the added capacity an airline would need (based on talks with those airlines) and still maintain profitable load factors. So, better economics, greater range, more profitable load factors and lower acquisition costs....doesn't seem to me to be so bad. But, then again, I look at it from a business perspective. Based on this, it appears this bird will fly, turn a profit and all with or without the A3XX. And, come on Udo...a plane bigger than the 747 is not Airbus' idea...remember that the DC10 was initially envisioned as an aircraft that appears mysteriously similar to the A3XX. The rest of your comments about the world revolving around Airbus is not even worth commenting on.

I find it humorous that, immediately following Fleet Service's post warning of the Airbus cultists' response, we have Udo's post! Great call there, Fleet Service.

Southside Irish...our two teams are the White Sox and whoever plays the Cubs!
User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4556 posts, RR: 5
Reply 20, posted (15 years 12 months 2 days ago) and read 1593 times:

As CWQpilot stated, there are 3 versions of 747s being offered. Only one of them seats over 500 passengers. This is hardly a "super jumbo". As for the numbers expressed by Boeing, they are just that, numbers. They have not been proven. On the other hand though, Boeing's numbers are constantly conservative as shown with the 717.

"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlineWingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2887 posts, RR: 7
Reply 21, posted (15 years 12 months 2 days ago) and read 1588 times:

I agree no one should believe anything they read directly from the manufacturers. The amenities nonsense comes straight from Airbus and I agree with Cwapilot that it turns the capacity argument on its head. This will never happen.

Likewise, Udo is right about Boeing doing the flip flop on demand. But so has Airbus. This project has been delayed 5 times already due to lack of serious demand from the airlines. We may taunt the manufacturers for their perceived timidity but I liken these superjumbo projects to opening a new restaurant. Restaurants are an inherently risky business. How easily would you commit HALF your "net worth" to one? Well, you'd certainly take a long time to think about it. Maybe even show pictures of what your hamburgers would look like. Amenities might include cardiac paddles and automatic cholesterol-reducing pill dispensers. We Yanks have weak hearts!

Well, back to some serious considertaion and analysis. The other day I did some calculations showing how an $18 billion investment by Airbus might require deliveries of up to 1600 units to break even. We're talking a very very serious possibility of Airbus never turning a profit on this project. This assumes a best case scenario of 5% margins. Boeing, on the other hand, might be able to get away with a $4 billion investment and put the 747X models on the market for $200 million a unit. At a 5% margin, this would yield $10 million in profit/unit. At that rate, Boeing would require 400 unit deliveries to break even.

Now, let's split manufacturer forecasts straight down the middle and give them each a 50% share of the superjumbo market. Demand over the next 20 years would be approximately 800 aircraft vs. Boeing's 360 and Airbus's 1200(?). If each is able to sell 400 units in that time, the project is merely a waste of time for Boeing (just breaks even) while for Airbus shareholders it is an unqualified disaster. This is the type of analysis that delays these projects over and over again. To cap it all off, Airbus today used the words "six POTENTIAL customers" in press releases. Yesterday it was LAUNCH customers. No one has ordered anything yet and in the words of one analyst quoted in Reuters, the launch of the A3XX this week merely allows Airbus to continue this ongoing marketing campaign.

Both planes will fly and we won't know the financial implications until 2010-2020. Only the airlines and the flying public win for sure.

User currently offlineNa From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 11589 posts, RR: 9
Reply 22, posted (15 years 12 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1580 times:

Nice to hear. The "old" 747 seems to be the most venerable airliner around. If they really can fullfil these promises in Seattle they are the surprise of the season. They better do because if some airlines choose the 747NG over the novel A350 now because of brilliant economics and Boeing cannot deliver them - they´ll loose the Jumbo war very fast after both start service.

Lucky customers (airlines & passengers), we´ll have 2 great eagles flying by 2005/6. No monopoly any more.
Both will find their market share, the clever 747 NGs and the A350, even if it will take more than a decade ´til the Airbus reaches the break-even-point. The A350 will have the novelty and the PR on its side, the 747NGs will be more a bean-counters dream and a safe but smart choice.
The next 6 months will be really exiting for enthusiasts: the 2 most interesting airliners since the late 60s (when the Concorde and the 747 Classic came out) will be launched.

User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 7142 posts, RR: 53
Reply 23, posted (15 years 12 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1567 times:

How can we make all this fuzz over another fuselage plug in a 30 years old plane? Plus in some variants even a wing centre plug?
How can that save 24%? If it can, why wasn't it done many years ago?
Why all this A3XX fuzz? I mean, the world's largest plane today, the 747-400, sells rather poorly, not because it's a bad plane, but because it is too large and looses out to 777 and 340. I mean 1200 747s of many variants over 31 years is really not impressive - and without competition.
Why all this fuzz about even bigger planes?

I think that Boeing management is just airing some numbers which could be realistic as a very last stretch of the 747 design before it falls apart. Just to keep the conversation with their customers going. And most important, in a way which does not upset the Boeing shareholders. Because they know that any really new design with a size beyond the present 747-400 will not make profit for the manufacturer in the foreseeable future.

Hopefully Airbus management know that too. But I'm not so sure they do.

Fifteen years ago Boeing said that any future upgrade beyond the 747-400 would require a totally redesigned wing. Now they offer to fly a new wing centre plug in 2005. It just proves to me: Those Boeing guys are realistic. They have a feeling for what is real market opportunities and what is just words of mouth.

We are again comparing apples and oranges. We compare a thirty years old plane - stretched and plugged to the limits - with a totally new design which wont even fly for the first 6-7-8 years after a decision to build it is made. Somewhere there is a 35 years technology gap hidden which we totally ignore. Or we assume that the Airbus guys live in a world way back in a past century.

We will never know. That Super-Jumbo decision has been pending at Boeing and Airbus for twenty years now. It will still be pending in 2020.

Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
User currently offlineF4N From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (15 years 12 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1551 times:

Na: I could not agree with you more, both as an a/c enthusiast as well as someone interested in commercial aviation. The launch of new a/c is, of course, always a source of pleasure for us all. Not only for pics, details, models, ect., but also to see which carriers buy them, why they chose them and how they intend to employ them. It also provides us with insights as to the directions being taken by the airlines & manufactures, i.e., whose concepts are being validated in actual practice? In this case, the upcoming summer airshows
will hopefully begin to give a glimmer as to whether or not the "superjumbo" market really exists and whether or not all the hype has some substance to it.
For myself, I believe that Boeing's 747 plans represent
a sound, if short term response to A3XX. Not all airlines will need something the size of A3XX or will want to make that kind of expenditure. For them, a resized 747 may be sufficient. How extensive each part of that market is will determine each a/c's initial success and how much momentum each can build.



25 Ab.400 : Cwapilot, why do you feel the need to get personal ? Can´t you reply to a topic just responding to what is written ? Remember that this is an aviatio
26 Na : If Boeing tries to catch fish with wrong data (at least data that they cannot deliver honestly) they will make a mistake no airline will ever forgive
27 Ab.400 : But " up to 24 % " is very stretchable, and they know that too.
28 CX747 : Do not make this into an arguement. That is not the objective of this post. If you would like to continue your ridiculous statements feel free to star
29 Post contains images Ab.400 : Ridiculous ?? And that comes from you . read your topic again, you stated exact these numbers as very interesting.
30 Kaitak : I've just been skipping through some of the posts and I think Avion makes a very good point that without the A3XX, we may not have the 747X. After all
31 CX747 : I don't know if this has truly been touched upon, but these new 747 variants that are being offered seemed to have closed the deal for Qantas. They ar
32 Shankly : As always, some well presented facts and good opinions/arguments re: both projects. I would like to suggest that it is considered one strand of this d
33 Jaysit : Sounds like Boeing counter-reacting to Airbus again. Boeing laughed at the A300 project in the 1970s claiming that a wide-bodied twin was an unfeasibl
34 Boeing747-400 : I agree with CX747, this post was not to start another war. Both planes will probably come out and sell to airlines just like the A340 and 744. Who kn
35 F4N : To all: I suspect that it would probably be best to consider any 747 derivative to be a short term response to this evolving market. As the picture be
36 Navion : I think Boeing has not changed it's position on a superjumbo as they are positioning themselves to build a derivative for $3 Billion as opposed to a N
37 Ab.400 : Maybe already in a couple days we see something happen in this case at the current Air show in Berlin or even later at Farnbogouh. That would answer s
38 CX747 : I don't know where a $30 million dollar discount came into play. The 747Xs sell at 30 million dollars less than the A3XX WITHOUT a discount. There is
39 Avion : Airbus perfectly knows what they're doing. Currently the market needs a 747Xclass capacity and sooner than later a need for an even bigger aircraft wi
40 CX747 : If one were to remember a year or two ago Boeing did let the world in on its NLA designs. I believe that the project was known as the 764-263C and Avi
41 Wingman : I'm the first to admit my math skills aren't the greatest, but according to Airbus press releases in Berlin, they estimate the 400+ market at 1200 air
42 Navion : The cost to develop will be AT LEAST $12 billion, and that does not include individual unit costs of production. Now is the picture getting clearer?!
43 CstarU : Airbus is responsible for two-thirds of the $12+ billion. The remaining one-third is from government loans(subsidies) below commercial lending rates.
44 Post contains images Teahan : This is the B747X: ,this is the763-246: and this is the C-17 look-alike: Jeremiah Teahan
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...
SAN Releases Survey Data And Traffic Figures posted Fri Feb 18 2005 06:37:58 by Boeing7E7
Boeing Releases New 7E7 Pic posted Mon May 5 2003 14:12:35 by Fly-K
Boeing 747-400XQLR Data posted Tue Feb 26 2002 17:22:32 by CX747
Boeing's New 747X Design posted Mon Mar 12 2001 16:39:57 by CX747
Data About Boeing 2707-200 posted Fri May 18 2007 17:53:19 by Flagon
Boeing 747X Revived posted Wed May 19 2004 23:12:34 by JeckPDX
Should Boeing Have Gone Through With 747X? posted Fri Aug 17 2001 22:00:16 by 747_pilot85
Boeing 747X Program posted Fri Aug 17 2001 17:48:40 by 747_pilot85
Boeing & US Investigators Change MI Data. Why? posted Mon Jul 16 2001 23:26:49 by Singapore_Air
Boeing Are Cancelling The 747X posted Fri Mar 30 2001 14:24:19 by CEDARJET