Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing 747ADV Launch Update  
User currently offlineSq212 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 272 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 8601 times:

Summary of what Randy Baseler said at a Paris press conference:
- confident of year end launch
- will have 6% fewer cost on a seat-to-mile basis, and 13% fewer fuel cost than the older 747 model
- it will have more than one order for the model
- bulk of early order will be freighters rather than passenger capacity
- expects order be divided 50-50 between freight plane and passenger planes over the long term

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/stor...E21-B550-447E-B0F9-EA1AE950E0B6%7D

Cheers

50 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineThorben From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 8454 times:

450 would be a good size to fill the gap between the A346 and the A388. Definitely a market there for it.

Cost and fuel burn advantages don't seem too big.


User currently offlineDanny From Poland, joined Apr 2002, 3509 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 8406 times:

Only 6% cost advantage over old 747? I guess this is why they already predict poor sale of passenger version.

User currently offlineDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 8369 times:

6% is too low! No wonder the airlines are not exactly beating down the door of Boeing lining up to order it. If it were 10% or better, it would be a very serious competitor and threat to the A-380 program, but at this point I highly doubt it will have much impact.


One Nation Under God
User currently offlineFraport From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 144 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 8313 times:

In the beginning they said the Freighter will sell better than the Pax version, later they stated the airlines have a stronger interest in the Pax type, and now it's the Freighter again. That raises the question how serious can you take these predictions?

User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 5, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 8288 times:

Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 3):
6% is too low! No wonder the airlines are not exactly beating down the door of Boeing lining up to order it. If it were 10% or better, it would be a very serious competitor and threat to the A-380 program, but at this point I highly doubt it will have much impact.

The CASM advantage over the B747-400 is not the important question. After all, no one will be retiring B747-400s early to buy the B747Adv. The important question is what is the CASM advantage over the WhaleJet, if any.


User currently offlineNA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10736 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 8247 times:

"- will have 6% fewer cost on a seat-to-mile basis, and 13% fewer fuel cost than the older 747 model".
I´m not a mathematician, but how can that be? If it burns 13% less fuel and has more seats than the 744 at the same time, mustn´t the savings per seat not logically be higher than 13%?

"- bulk of early order will be freighters rather than passenger capacity"
Sounds like a minimum of one or two freighter operators exluding Cargolux (who are set) plus one or two pax airlines will kick off the production.

"- it will have more than one order for the model"
Don´t know what he´s trying to say here. Does he mean there are probably just two launch Customers? Cargolux with ca. 10 freighters and one airline with less than 10 pax jets?


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 7, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 8212 times:

Quoting NA (Reply 6):
"- will have 6% fewer cost on a seat-to-mile basis, and 13% fewer fuel cost than the older 747 model".
I�m not a mathematician, but how can that be? If it burns 13% less fuel and has more seats than the 744 at the same time, mustn�t the savings per seat not logically be higher than 13%?

Easy. Fuel costs are just a fraction of total operating costs. Landing fees will not go down. MX will not go down (at least not signficantly). Labor costs will not go down. Etc.

Quoting NA (Reply 6):
"- bulk of early order will be freighters rather than passenger capacity"
Sounds like a minimum of one or two freighter operators exluding Cargolux (who are set) plus one or two pax airlines will kick off the production.

"- it will have more than one order for the model"
Don�t know what he�s trying to say here. Does he mean there are probably just two launch Customers? Cargolux with ca. 10 freighters and one airline with less than 10 pax jets?

Boeing have been saying for a long time that the B747Adv would launch when there were two customers. Cargolux are one. One more (passenger or cargo) are needed. If Boeing are very close to signing two or three, they might wait a few weeks on the formal launch so that they can launch with three or four customers rather than with two.


User currently offlineF4N From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 8204 times:

';ldsa

Quoting Fraport (Reply 4):
n the beginning they said the Freighter will sell better than the Pax version, later they stated the airlines have a stronger interest in the Pax type, and now it's the Freighter again. That raises the question how serious can you take these predictions?

Fraport:

I do not remember Boeing ever suggesting that the pax version would ever be of primary interest to customers. IIRC, the emphasis has always been towards the F version with the potential for pax sales to current 747 operators which do not want/need A380 type capacity.

I certainly believe Boeing intends to use the 747A as an interim model until such time as the market potential for an A380 competitor becomes clearer. Until that happens, they will probably be content to sell whatever version carriers want. I'm sure that their baseline for sales is not real high.

regards,

F4N


User currently offlineNA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10736 posts, RR: 9
Reply 9, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 8077 times:

"I certainly believe Boeing intends to use the 747A as an interim model until such time as the market potential for an A380 competitor becomes clearer. Until that happens, they will probably be content to sell whatever version carriers want. I'm sure that their baseline for sales is not real high."

Certainly right to some extent. Boeing did the same when they brought out the 777 a few years after the A330/340.

Though I doubt there will ever a direct A380 competitor from Boeing. What Boeing will build eventually under their 3 aircraft family plan (certainly not before 2015) is something with a far larger market. As the 787-10 will virtually kill the 777-200 the 747 successor will replace the 773, 747 and will be able to be stretched to an even bigger aircraft, though smaller than the A380. Everything else would mean Boeing has to change their long-term plan and build a 4th type of aircraft.


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 10, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 8035 times:

Quoting NA (Reply 9):
Though I doubt there will ever a direct A380 competitor from Boeing. What Boeing will build eventually under their 3 aircraft family plan (certainly not before 2015) is something with a far larger market. As the 787-10 will virtually kill the 777-200 the 747 successor will replace the 773, 747 and will be able to be stretched to an even bigger aircraft, though smaller than the A380. Everything else would mean Boeing has to change their long-term plan and build a 4th type of aircraft.

The fuselage diameter of Y3 will depend on whether or not Boeing produce a B787-11 (A340-600 length) variant. If there will be a B787-11, then Y3 will have a relatively larger fuselage diameter (perhaps 290-300 inches) and the longest version will probably compete directly with the A380-800. If the largest B787 is the B787-10, then Y3 will have a relatively smaller fuselage diameter (perhaps about 270 inches) and will remain smaller than the WhaleJet.


User currently offlinePHXinterrupted From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 474 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 7936 times:

Quoting Fraport (Reply 4):
In the beginning they said the Freighter will sell better than the Pax version, later they stated the airlines have a stronger interest in the Pax type, and now it's the Freighter again. That raises the question how serious can you take these predictions?

No less serious than some of the stuff that comes out of the mouth of John Leahy.



Keepin' it real.
User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2818 posts, RR: 10
Reply 12, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 7796 times:

The A380 is supposed to have a 15% lower fuel burn per seat than the 744 and from wbpg's charts a while back, the 747ADV was supposed to beat that. 13% is a bit of a reduction.

User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 13, posted (8 years 11 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 5220 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 7):
Boeing have been saying for a long time that the B747Adv would launch when there were two customers. Cargolux are one. One more (passenger or cargo) are needed. If Boeing are very close to signing two or three, they might wait a few weeks on the formal launch so that they can launch with three or four customers rather than with two.

I agree that Cargolux is, most likely one of the launch customers, at least for the B-747-ADV-F. Perhaps an airline like NZ could launch the pax version? AI might also be on the list as a potential, converting some of their B-777-300ERs to B-747-ADVs? What about AC? They need new wide bodies.

UPS could convert some of their B-747-400Fs (they ordered 10, IIRC) to the B-747-ADV-F, couldn't they?

I believe that eventually BA will buy some B-747-ADVs when they start replacing the B-747-400s (maybe around 2011-2012?). About the same time, they will replace their B-767-300ERs with B-787-800s. So, BA could place a big order with Boeing around 2009, or so.

NW and UA will also eventually order the B-747-ADV.


User currently offlineWiggidy From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 113 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (8 years 11 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 5201 times:

Quoting Glom (Reply 12):
The A380 is supposed to have a 15% lower fuel burn per seat than the 744 and from wbpg's charts a while back, the 747ADV was supposed to beat that. 13% is a bit of a reduction.

Spot on there, no doubt about it. Makes sense that Boeing can only get one interested company, and why it has taken such an incredible ammount of time for them to actually say "go". I remember many people thought it would launch at paris... more than 4 months ago and many months of speculation before that. Id love to see it flying, but I beleive we will only see it in Boeing loyal airline liveries
-Wes


User currently offlineSNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3247 posts, RR: 22
Reply 15, posted (8 years 11 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 5182 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13):
What about AC? They need new wide bodies.

I very much doubt it. Milton wants to simplify their widebody fleet with twins (B787/B777). I don't think adding a few quads will be attractive to him. Also notice that AC has not flown anything as big as a B747 for many years (the last few B747s they flew, before they retired them, were combis). Of course, never say never, but I highly doubt it.

Tony



Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 16, posted (8 years 11 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 5096 times:

Quoting Wiggidy (Reply 14):
Quoting Glom (Reply 12):
The A380 is supposed to have a 15% lower fuel burn per seat than the 744 and from wbpg's charts a while back, the 747ADV was supposed to beat that. 13% is a bit of a reduction.

Wasn't that based on something like a 650+ seat configuration, for the A-380, and only a 400 seat B-747-400? But, as I understand it, most of the airlines that have ordered the A-380s have decided to configur then in the 500-550 seat configueration. So, those A-380s will actually burn a lot more fuel, per seat mile, than the current version of the B-747.

Quoting Wiggidy (Reply 14):
Spot on there, no doubt about it. Makes sense that Boeing can only get one interested company, and why it has taken such an incredible ammount of time for them to actually say "go". I remember many people thought it would launch at paris... more than 4 months ago and many months of speculation before that. Id love to see it flying, but I beleive we will only see it in Boeing loyal airline liveries
-Wes

Well, it depends on what Boeing is comparing the B-747-ADV too, doesn't it? If Boeing is saying the B-747-ADV will burn 13% less fuel, with 450 seats, than the B-747-400, with 416 seats, that is significant. I suspect (and I'm only guessing here) that the engineering work needed to put the GEnx engines on the B-747-ADV is taking longer than Boeing wanted. But, then again, this COULD have been Boeing's time table anyway.


User currently offlineJetMaster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 11 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 5050 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16):
Wasn't that based on something like a 650+ seat configuration, for the A-380, and only a 400 seat B-747-400?

Based on which source?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16):
But, as I understand it, most of the airlines that have ordered the A-380s have decided to configur then in the 500-550 seat configueration.

Airbus sells it a as 555 seater, so what do you expect?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16):
So, those A-380s will actually burn a lot more fuel, per seat mile, than the current version of the B-747.

A B777 also burns a lot more fuel than a B737...  Yeah sure



Regards,
JM


User currently offlineUnited Airline From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2001, 9169 posts, RR: 15
Reply 18, posted (8 years 11 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 5015 times:

Not sure if the B 777-200/200ER will be replaced by the B 787-10 eventually since the B 787-10 is smaller with a lower capacity.

Hope the B 747 Advanced will do very well and outsell the B 747-400. And hope it will be launched soon.


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 19, posted (8 years 11 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4868 times:

Not sure if the B 777-200/200ER will be replaced by the B 787-10 eventually since the B 787-10 is smaller with a lower capacity.
I'm not sure what you mean by "smaller with a lower capacity." According to the data provided by Widebodyphotog, the B787-10 would have a greater cabin floor area and hold more pallets and LD3s than the B777-200ER. Max payload of the B787-10 would be slightly lower, but max payload with max fuel would be considerably higher.
RE: First 787-10X Image (by Widebodyphotog Oct 17 2005 in Civil Aviation)
http://theaviationspecialist.com/300seat_comparo_table.gif


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 20, posted (8 years 11 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4479 times:

Quoting JetMaster (Reply 17):
Airbus sells it a as 555 seater, so what do you expect?

They also advertise it as an 800 seater.

http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfamilies/a380/a380/performance.html

Quoting JetMaster (Reply 17):
A B777 also burns a lot more fuel than a B737...

Exactly, and the B-747-ADV will actually burn less fuel than the A-380 does, in an airplane to airplane comparison.


User currently offlineJetMaster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (8 years 11 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4422 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 20):

They also advertise it as an 800 seater.

Just because it can seat 800 pax in a one-class configuration it doesn't mean they actively advertise that option to the airlines. If you read through their website you will find out that they usually refer to the A380 as a 555-seater.

http://www.airbus.com/en/myairbus/

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 20):
Exactly, and the B-747-ADV will actually burn less fuel than the A-380 does, in an airplane to airplane comparison.

Which is about as helpful as a B737 to B777 comparison...


Regards,
JM


User currently offlineSq212 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 272 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (8 years 11 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4207 times:

I would like to think that operators who only need to fill not more than 450 passengers will likely go for 747ADV. Unless A380 can prove that carrying less than 450 passengers is more economical to operate and maintain than the 747ADV.

Cheers

[Edited 2005-10-22 12:15:55]

User currently offlineJetMaster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (8 years 11 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4142 times:

Quoting Sq212 (Reply 22):
I would like to think that operators who only need to fill not more than 450 passengers will likely go for 747ADV.

The B747ADV won't seat 450 pax in a comfortable three-class layout...400-415 maybe.

Quoting Sq212 (Reply 22):
Unless A380 can proved that carrying less than 450 passengers is more economical to operate and maintain than the 747ADV.

That depends on the specific layout and the number of different configurations in a sub-fleet. If a majority of A380s in a fleet operates with some 475-500 seats then it may make more sense to have a few A380 with 450 or less rather than a totally different type. One cannot draw a general conclusion here.


Regards,
JM


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9105 posts, RR: 75
Reply 24, posted (8 years 11 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4132 times:

Quoting Sq212 (Reply 22):
I would like to think that operators who only need to fill not more than 450 passengers will likely go for 747ADV. Unless A380 can prove that carrying less than 450 passengers is more economical to operate and maintain than the 747ADV.

I agree, the 773/773ER is too small for some operators, and A380 too big.

Could see KL, CX, BA, QF, ordering them to replace older 744s to provide a 350-400 seat 3 class aircraft on their routes.

Hope to see the new improved Queen of the skies flying again.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
25 United Airline : The B 777-200/200ER is still very new and I doubt it will be replaced anytime soon. In fact it doesn't have to be replaced anytime soon. And I still h
26 Post contains links NAV20 : Apparently both Qantas and Singapore Airlines have reduced their planned seat totals on their A380s to only 474 now:- "....Qantas has reduced the numb
27 JetMaster : Not a big surprise considering QF and SQ will fight hard for F and C class dominance on the lucrative SYD-LHR route. Regards, JM
28 PM : The 2ER is rolling along but Boeing haven't sold a -200 in almost four years and have sold just three new builds (the Cathay plane was the developmen
29 PhilSquares : SQ never planned for anything else. It's Qantas that has reduced their seating on the 380.
30 N503JB : Cathay, ANA and JAL will be B747ADV customer. Regards N503JB
31 Sq212 : CV, CI, JL and SQ were consistently mentioned by ATWonline as one closely identified with the 747ADV program. MH, NH and BA are prospects too. I bet
32 Hrhf1 : What about a Combi variant? Couldn't that be of interest to some airlines?
33 Trex8 : I'll bet any CI order is for passenger ones first. They have already replaced their 744s from the early 90s. The other Pratt powered 744s were delive
34 Zvezda : Why? The B787-10 will outperform the B777-200ER in every meaningful way (except max payload on short routes) and at much lower cost. The FAA has made
35 Sq212 : I believed the first PW powered 744F was delivered sometime in Feb or Mar of 1990s. By 2010, it will be 20 years old. I think CI will move to replace
36 Ha763 : I don't see ANA being a 747ADV customer anytime soon, if ever. They are reducing their international 744 fleet and replacing them with 773ERs that se
37 Trex8 : CI has never had a Pratt powered 744F, all their 744Fs are GE powered and 1st delivered in 2000. They did have one of the last 742Fs (PW), that went
38 Zvezda : We were discussing B747s, not B737s. Everything I hear is that the bulkhead the FAA would require is too heavy, as well as too inflexible, to be of e
39 Sq212 : Thanks for the correction pal. mistyped PW 742F as PW 744F. I thought the PW742F are still in operation as CI colors without knowing that it went to
40 MarshalN : JAL I agree, but CX? I don't think they're necessarily predisposed to one or the other. I think they're in the wait and see mode for the A380 and see
41 Trex8 : I suspect CX may have a hang up about the GE engines on the 747Adv besides any other reasons they may have against it! Thinking about it, the last GE
42 Ha763 : You said that the FAA will not certify any more combis, not just 747 combis, which is still incorrect. Just because one isn't built doesn't mean the
43 Zvezda : Of course it does. I didn't write "would not" but just "will not." Were someone build one to the new standards, the FAA would certify it. If, as wide
44 KC135TopBoom : You are correct, Zvezda. The international agreements between the US, EU, and other countries excepts a standard set of aircraft certification proced
45 Post contains images Lehpron : Why are they making this plane again? If the bulk of early orders will be freighters rather than passenger capacity, then this is not a niche aircraf
46 Sq212 : Different operators has different reasons and needs. Many needs aircraft right sizing, some believed in hub set up, other requires more seats, and us
47 Art : While I agree with your comments, I think there is more concerning the A350 and B747ADV: should the p2p and h2h predictions of A and B not pan out, b
48 Zeke : My 2c, H2H is here to stay with modest growth, P2P will expand with increased growth, some will fail P2P as the actual demand is unknown.
49 Ikramerica : B feels the pax market for 450+ sized aircraft is saturated right now, especially with the A380, but has always said that the 20 year forecast is back
50 Lemurs : Fantastic explanation in 500 words or less. It's so exhausting to type up responses like that when you feel this should be obvious, I'm always thrill
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 Nears 747adv Launch Decision posted Wed Sep 7 2005 09:22:05 by Sq212
747ADV Launch Customers posted Sat Nov 5 2005 12:59:03 by ANZ772
Offical 747Adv Launch Near? posted Tue Sep 27 2005 15:37:22 by USAF336TFS
Boeing Weekly Order Update For Aug. 2, 2005 posted Thu Aug 4 2005 16:53:57 by NYC777
Boeing Announced Launch Of The 747 Adv. In Le Bourget posted Tue Jun 14 2005 10:24:15 by Columba
Paris/Boeing 747ADV? posted Mon May 30 2005 19:32:54 by Blackbird1331
Would An Earlier 747ADV Launch Date Help? posted Thu May 19 2005 22:03:49 by JAM747
Which Is Better For Boeing 747ADV Or 777-400 posted Thu May 12 2005 22:32:07 by JAM747
Boeing 747Adv? Show Us The Money Boeing! posted Fri May 6 2005 00:01:48 by Soundtrack
747Adv Launch Cust.? posted Thu Oct 28 2004 03:27:19 by BoeingFever777