A380900 From France, joined Dec 2003, 1006 posts, RR: 1 Posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 8624 times:
How bad is it for Boeing not to be able to display one passenger airplane order as they launch the new 747?
Can one imagine the efforts Boeing put into avoiding this? They must have practically given away the thing and there were... no takers. Scary for the new plane's commercial prospects.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21028 posts, RR: 60 Reply 1, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 8565 times:
Quoting A380900 (Thread starter): How bad is it for Boeing not to be able to display one passenger airplane order as they launch the new 747?
Can one imagine the efforts Boeing put into avoiding this? They must have practically given away the thing and there were... no takers. Scary for the new plane's commercial prospects.
Wow, it only took a few hours for the failure of the 748 to be announced.
There is a little thing called the Dubai Airshow coming up, as well as pending order announcements from QF and SQ, and BA planning it's future within 6 months.
I doubt Boeing is worried, but it's nice of you to be so concerned.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Atmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 39 Reply 3, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 8533 times:
Quoting A380900 (Thread starter): How bad is it for Boeing not to be able to display one passenger airplane order as they launch the new 747?
Can one imagine the efforts Boeing put into avoiding this? They must have practically given away the thing and there were... no takers. Scary for the new plane's commercial prospects.
Of course, you are trying to find some negative spin. Be careful, or you might just be made a fool just like another thread starter has.
And as I said elsewhere, Boeing said they would launch with two reputable airlines, and once the second one went public, they have to launch to keep their word.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
Sllevin From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 3376 posts, RR: 6 Reply 6, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 8349 times:
Scarier than the A380's prospects, in which almost 1/3 of all airframes ordered are slated to go to an airline that doesn't fly a single 747-400 today?
PhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 8284 times:
Quoting A380900 (Thread starter): How bad is it for Boeing not to be able to display one passenger airplane order as they launch the new 747?
Can one imagine the efforts Boeing put into avoiding this? They must have practically given away the thing and there were... no takers. Scary for the new plane's commercial prospects.
You're absolutely correct. This will be the death of Boeing. Heard a rumor that Airbus was going to step in and buy out Boeing.
A380900, please give it a rest. Next thing we'll be hearing about numerous conspiracy theories!!!
PanAm_DC10 From Australia, joined Aug 2000, 3987 posts, RR: 93 Reply 9, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 8255 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW COMMUNITY MANAGER
Quoting A380900 (Thread starter): How bad is it for Boeing not to be able to display one passenger airplane order as they launch the new 747?
Can one imagine the efforts Boeing put into avoiding this? They must have practically given away the thing and there were... no takers. Scary for the new plane's commercial prospects.
A380900
As you are a registered user on this forum I assume that you are quite interested in commercial aviation and all that goes with it. True, some forum members prefer one manufacturer over the other and vice versa. Though at the end of the day, when all is said and done, the majority here prefer all manufacturer's and all that goes with them or against them and they enjoy every aspect of the industry in which they work in or participate in from an enthusiast's perspective.
Seven words for you, accentuate the positive and enjoy the day!
Sabenapilot From Belgium, joined Feb 2000, 2697 posts, RR: 49 Reply 10, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 8240 times:
Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 4): Be careful, or you might just be made a fool just like another thread starter has.
You mean like all those who started threads on the many doom's day scenarios for the A380 we see launched every 3 days?
One must admit it is a bit of a shame for Boeing not being able to announce a passenger airline as launch customer too, because it would have helped them to overcome the general feeling the 747 is good only for cargo transport.
I think it is the first time in history Boeing launches a plane without such a customer?
Anyhow, I wouldn't dare to say it is a problem, as there will certainly be many passenger versions ordered too... JL being first on the list.
As a side note:
what's up with plane manufacturers lately????
Ever since the A380 they all seem obsessed with the figure 8, wanting to have it in the name of their planes at least once: 787-8, 787-9, A350-800 and now this 747-8!!
I am seriously considering taking an option on names like 777-8 just in case Boeing decides to 'modernize' its product names just a bit more... What is wrong with '747-500' as a name? It would be a fine name (in line with tradition) for what is certainly going to be a fine plane (in line with tradition too)...
Art From Lebanon, joined Feb 2005, 2937 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 8238 times:
Quoting A380900 (Thread starter): How bad is it for Boeing not to be able to display one passenger airplane order as they launch the new 747?
It's not bad at all to be able to launch an aircraft that should make a profit on freighter sales alone!
This announcement also sorts out how you shift big cargo around the world until 2035+, I would say. Barring oil price/environmental considerations making all existing aircraft obsolete.
ClassicLover From Ireland, joined Mar 2004, 4522 posts, RR: 25 Reply 12, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 8214 times:
Please, passenger versions and freight versions are just as important as each other. There is no loss of prestige if freight versions are ordered first. Just because it's unprecedented, doesn't mean it's wrong.
The fact that it's launched might get some of the passenger airlines to order it as it's not a viable aircraft.
Let's not overlook the fact that the Boeing 747 was originally designed to be a freighter, as it was expected that SSTs would carry all the passengers in the future. It's a non-issue people.
Trent.
I do quite enjoy a spot of flying - more so when it's not in Economy!
Jush From Germany, joined Apr 2005, 1636 posts, RR: 4 Reply 13, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 8164 times:
Dare is say that this whole thread is ridiculous.
I love the A380 but i'm happy to see that there is a future for that plane that we all love and that has shaped aviation as we know it now. So why is there a bashing of that plane now?
I know it was the same for the A380 until it flew and it is still now. But why are the airbus fans not any better?
I'm happy to see a nice 747 update fly around soon as well as i love to see that behemoth motherf*cker
Regards
jush
There is one problem with airbus. Though their products are engineering marvels they lack passion, completely.
AMSGOT From Sweden, joined Jun 2005, 337 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 8149 times:
Quoting Sabenapilot (Reply 11): As a side note:
what's up with plane manufacturers lately????
Ever since the A380 they all seem obsessed with the figure 8, wanting to have it in the name of their planes at least once: 787-8, 787-9, A350-800 and now this 747-8!!
I am seriously considering taking an option on names like 777-8 just in case Boeing decides to 'modernize' its product names just a bit more... What is wrong with '747-500' as a name? It would be a fine name (in line with tradition) for what is certainly going to be a fine plane (in line with tradition too)...
My thoughts exactly. We're waiting on a Boeing Triple 8 now. Or a similar Airbus name. I'm not into bashing Boeing or Airbus. I like both.
Thorben From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 8143 times:
Quoting Sabenapilot (Reply 11): Ever since the A380 they all seem obsessed with the figure 8, wanting to have it in the name of their planes at least once: 787-8, 787-9, A350-800 and now this 747-8!!
I think that is because that number stands for luck in the Asian countries. And they are the ones buying most of these planes.
And the passenger version? I think they'll get orders for that, simply because the gap between the A380 and the A346 is too big. I feel sorry for those passengers, they would love to fly point-to-point in an efficient twin, and now that.
Byrdluvs747 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2145 posts, RR: 1 Reply 17, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 8085 times:
Quoting Sabenapilot (Reply 11): what's up with plane manufacturers lately????
Ever since the A380 they all seem obsessed with the figure 8, wanting to have it in the name of their planes at least once: 787-8, 787-9
The 787 naming had nothing to do with that deformed POS Airbus is making. All the other 7xx series numbers were taken. The 777 was the newest Boeing aircraft type so it's only logical that 787 would be next. Boeing's next plane, whatever that is, will get the 797 designation.
EI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 8076 times:
Quoting Sllevin (Reply 7): Scarier than the A380's prospects, in which almost 1/3 of all airframes ordered are slated to go to an airline that doesn't fly a single 747-400 today?
Could you please explain where is the relevance in this statement?
Quoting A380900 (Thread starter): imagine the efforts Boeing put into avoiding this? They must have practically given away the thing and there were... no takers. Scary for the new plane's commercial prospects.
I think (and hope) the 748 will be a success. There is a considerably large market even in 744 replacements to justify it. Boeing and Airbus are aware which airlines will be ordering their jets months before anything is announced puublically. There is no reason for B to be worried. I still struggle to understand how it could be cheaper to operate than an A380 (per passenger) and I do believe that they compete on about about 75% of orders for planes of this size.
Sq212 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 272 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 8045 times:
Quoting A380900 (Thread starter): How bad is it for Boeing not to be able to display one passenger airplane order as they launch the new 747?
To be fair, I think this question should also be asked on A380 launch about freighter order.
Sabenapilot From Belgium, joined Feb 2000, 2697 posts, RR: 49 Reply 20, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 8031 times:
Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 19): The 787 naming had nothing to do with that deformed POS Airbus is making. All the other 7xx series numbers were taken. The 777 was the newest Boeing aircraft type so it's only logical that 787 would be next. Boeing's next plane, whatever that is, will get the 797 designation.
Then explain me why Boeing decided to skip the -100 to -700 versions and had to go straight to the -8? Why exactly this number then?
Ever since the A380, Boeing has a obsession with the number 8, I tell you!
Col From Malaysia, joined Nov 2003, 2040 posts, RR: 22 Reply 23, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 7939 times:
A380900 is absolutely correct, it is ptiful that Boeing have no orders for Pax 748's. But wait, what is the order tally for the 744 v 380 this year. The 744 has outsold the 380 I hear you say, and they were all freighters. What, UPS confirmed their order for 744F and have not done so for the 380.
I guess from the above facts, that the FR market for large capacity aeroplanes is bigger than the Pax one. Boeing must be performing really badly, and making stupid decisions by going for this market (the larger one), and taking it hands down!
Anyone else sick of the stupid comments going both ways. I for one believe that both aircraft have a market, maybe the 747ADV will mostly be FR business, that opening nose is such a benefit, and the 380 Pax. They are both coming, and will offer both the airlines and passengers improvements.
PipoA380 From Switzerland, joined May 2005, 1591 posts, RR: 52 Reply 24, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 7863 times:
Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 19): People don't need an up close view to recognize ugliness.
People don't need you comments to recognize you're useless
It's not about AIRBUS. it's not about BOEING. It's all about the beauty of FLYING.
25 SA7700: Why did Airbus skip the A350 (initially), A360, A370 and then decided on the A380? It is a moot point. I don't know why I'm even bothering wasting my
26 797charter: I would be surprised NOT to see any passenger orders at the Dubai Airhow. The market is there for both the 748 and the A380. I cannot see any problem
27 CPH757: If they decide upon lucky numbers, one could wonder why so many Asian carriers operates 747-400 I don't see it as anything else than a marketing stun
28 Abba: Well Boeing could have called it the 747-500. I believe that it is because 8 is considered as being a lucky number by the Chinese and by implication
29 Glom: Good point. From reading this forum, you'd think the Chinese were a bunch of druids. Not only is it insulting to imply the Chinese can't make decisio
30 Zoom1018: Or you might consider the 747-500/600/700 are the stretched versions Boeing once wanted to build, hence the current -800s series.
31 Abba: Its part of their culture. Remember: Their faith is your superstition. Racism in my book is what you exhibit in not respecting the feelings and belie
32 Revelation: Stockholders and employees don't care if it's carrying boxes or fannies! And true aviation fans don't care either!
33 Glom: No. Racism is when you presume you know someone's behaviour because of their ethnic background, like the way you assume the CEO of a Chinese airline w
34 United Airline: You never know. There might be another B 747 variant one day, like the B 747X/X Stretch.
35 Kappel: Or maybe beacause of the 8000 nm range? I think this whole asian 8 thing is way overrated. Or else they would only buy 738's , 787's and nothing else
36 D L X: Can't trademark a number. Hence, Pentium instead of 586. There are about 5000 pictures up on this site showing this thing from every angle imaginable
37 Baw2198: Just on NPR this morning that Boeing HAS received a couple of orders for the new plane. www.npr.org
38 777STL: Wow, this thread, from someone who lives in France, with the screenname "A30900". I'm just shocked, flabbergasted even. I think the 748 will do well
39 Abba: ???? Your statement makes very little sense in this context! Certain ideas and views are common in a given culture. This certainly does not mean that
40 BN747: And... D L X (&Gkirk)... I must agree wholeheartedly! After seeing the drawings, then the models, I said "I'd wait and see and reserve judgement." We
41 N79969: No it isn't pitiful. A sale is a sale. In the case of the A380, the freighter carries a higher price than the pax version. I am curious as to why and
42 Kappel: I still fail to understand why everybody is tripping over each other to yell at a380900 for asking a question. I admit that I was also very surprised
43 MauriceB: the pax version will be an succes, just like the cargo version... thrust me.. 1- Many airlines found the A380 to big, just like BA, and think the 747-
44 USAF336TFS: Why am I not surprised to hear you say this? Fear not, my friend, you'll soon see a pax order. Gee, another a.nutter making a prediction, only to be
45 Kappel: no thank you, I don't go that way. But i will trust you that it will be a success, just like I said, it will probably take a lot of orders away from
46 Columbia107: Talking about aircraft numbers. Wait until the 787-9 comes along. You see, I recall once being approached by a group of Chinese visiting Gibraltar and
47 Glom: Fine. I'm not going to continue this tangent.
48 Macc: its quite amusing: how many threads have we had here with lots of folks bashing the A380 and questioning its financial success and more. seems to be t
49 RayChuang: In fact, I expect most 747-8 sales to be of the freighter version, mostly because freighters are HUGE moneymakers for any airline that operates them.
50 Col: Quoting Col (Reply 25): A380900 is absolutely correct, it is ptiful that Boeing have no orders for Pax 748's. No it isn't pitiful. A sale is a sale. I
52 Abba: Amen! "As the world's largest passenger plane took to the air at the Paris Air Show on Monday, onlookers at its competitor Boeing's chalets on the si
53 N79969: Col, I apologize...big mistake by me. My ability to read has failed me today.
54 Col: N79969, No problem, just wanted to inject some additional stupidity into a stupid post. Must go, time to take the shoes off and get abused by the TSA,
57 PipoA380: !!! A380 Thread: It's useless, it's ugly, it's fat, it's a financial disaster etc.. etc.. B 747 Thread: Great, but the 380 is ugly, it's fat, it's a
59 777STL: Maybe because sales have stagnated? I'm not going to pre-declare the 748 a commercial success like some have, but it does have a nearly 40 year prece
60 MattRB: Of course that just absolutely trumps the fact that the A380 wake turbulence results came in well outside of Airbus' stated expectations, right?
61 CHRISBA777ER: Discussion point. I was wrong. It happens. I stand by my points and one press release from Boeing does not prove me wrong. Now you can either gloat a
62 ODwyerPW: "Quoting Macc (Reply 50): this forum was once a great place. it has become a boring place now with way too many nationalistic idiots around" Macc, A t
63 Glom: So were you wrong or weren't you? FWIW, I was agreeing with you yesterday, although I didn't agree with your reasoning. I happy to report that my rea
64 USAF336TFS: Chris, no one is beating you up. I certainly did not intend it to sound that way. It was teasing and it was a bit humorous, as I'm sure even you can
65 Slarty: Fair point ... especially when Mulally has been quoted as saying the "interest is phenomenal". As I posted in another thread, he sounds more like Lea
66 Drerx7: While I disagree with the points you have on the A380 vs. 748 and we had our words in that other thread--for what its worth it is admirable that you
67 MIAMIx707: Yes, in my opinion the only airplane with huge engines that looks right. The serrated rear of the engines make it look interesting and old school, th
68 Ikramerica: Where does he admit he's wrong? When he says he is, or when he then says he isn't. The thread wasn't why Boeing SHOULDN'T launch the 747A, but why th
69 Ikramerica: Where does he admit he's wrong? When he says he is, or when he then says he isn't. The thread wasn't why Boeing SHOULDN'T launch the 747A, but why th
70 Falcon84: Boeing announced, TODAY-when this thread was started-that it's launching this aircraft, and some yahoo without a clue in France calls it a failure. An
71 FlyHoss: Perhaps the lack (thus far) of passenger version orders is a reflection of the current passenger airline industry. How's that old airline axiom go? S
Sponsor Message: 
From France, joined Dec 2003, 1006 posts, 
From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21028 posts, 
From South Korea, joined Jun 2005, 668 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2803 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2001, 8792 posts, 
From Australia, joined Aug 2000, 3987 posts, 
From Belgium, joined Feb 2000, 2697 posts, 
From Lebanon, joined Feb 2005, 2937 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Mar 2004, 4522 posts, 
From Germany, joined Apr 2005, 1636 posts, 
From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, 
From Malaysia, joined Nov 2003, 2040 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined May 2005, 1591 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
