Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Buy A 748? I Have A 773 Already.  
User currently offlineKevin From Canada, joined Dec 2000, 1140 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 5172 times:

When discussing the potential 748 buyers, many of you have crossed out such airlines as Eva, JAL, ANA, KAL... stating the fact that airlines are replacing their ageing 747 fleets with 773s. Well if Boeing knew well before about its intentions to launch this aircraft that many airlines will buy to replace their 747 fletts, why would they bother developing the 773?

Airlines would say " Well thanks a lot for telling me about the 748 now when I already commited for a bunch of 773s. I would gladly order the 748s if I knew it would be launched before."

By no means am I trying to say that 773 was a useless development. A very profitable and succesful product. But it did take away some potential 747 customers. Well taking into consideration that 773 the most expensive aircraft on the list I guess Boeing made its profits and they don't have much to worry about.

24 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineBG777300ER From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2005, 256 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 5138 times:

Why buy a 748? I have a 773 Already.

Answer: Cuz the sky is high.

Anyway, for a REAL answer, I guess they weren't really sure they were even going to make the 748 when releasing the 773. I'm personally glad they made the 773 cuz it's my favorite aircraft (as you can see from my username). Smile

But yeah they did cut some potential 748. But if boeing hadn't made the 773 and released the 748 on the same date (3 days ago) many airlines might not have wanted to wait that long and just went for the A346. There are many ways to look at this. In the end, boeing had many experts working for them and they have their reasons for doing what they did.

Good night



Koi mi sra v gashtite?
User currently offlineLemurs From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1439 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 5013 times:

While it could be argued that the 773 is cannibalizing 744 sales, it's still not a 1:1 replacement...airlines are intentionally choosing to take a step down in capacity and uplift over the 744 by choosing the 773ER. The gap becomes even greater between the 773 and the 748. A number of 773 sales to date have come more at the expense of aging 747 Classics and the A346. (Note to insane Airbus defender freaks: I am not saying it's "better", just that it's taking orders from the same market to handle the same kinds of routes and capacities.)


There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those that don't.
User currently offlineHa763 From United States of America, joined Jan 2003, 3632 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 4991 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Just look at Boeing's pax numbers for their typical 3-class seating capacity for the 773, 773ER and various the 747s.

773-368
773ER-365
741-366
742-366
743-412
744-416
748-450

As you can see, the 773 is a good direct replacement for the pax capacity of classic 747s, not necessarily the 744. But it does encroach on the capacity of the 744. With the 747-8, there is the potential for an almost 100 pax difference between the 773 and 748.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21472 posts, RR: 60
Reply 4, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4966 times:

Quoting Ha763 (Reply 3):
As you can see, the 773 is a good direct replacement for the pax capacity of classic 747s, not necessarily the 744. But it does encroach on the capacity of the 744. With the 747-8, there is the potential for an almost 100 pax difference between the 773 and 748.

Exactly, the question used to be: why buy a 744ER when i can buy a much newer, more efficient 773ER with better range, equal cargo ability and nearly the same seating. I'll just trim out some Y seats and call it a day.

Now the 748 is a big enough difference both in pax numbers AND cargo capacity to make it able to sell alongside the 773ER.

773ER/346 were always marketed as 741/2 replacements, though some opted to not buy the 744 anymore once the 346 and 773ER became available, thus the ZERO outstanding pax 744 orders (Phillipine doesn't count).



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineUnited Airline From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2001, 9160 posts, RR: 15
Reply 5, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4885 times:

B 777-300ER is replacing the B 747 classics but not the B 747-400. The B 747-8 has a much higher capacity.

The airlines you stated are not replacing B 747-400s with B 777-300ERs and there is a chance that they will place a large order for the B 747-8


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21472 posts, RR: 60
Reply 6, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4851 times:

Quoting United Airline (Reply 5):
The airlines you stated are not replacing B 747-400s with B 777-300ERs

Yes, they in fact are. NH has already swapped 773ERs onto routes that were served by 744s, and JL will do the same. While they aren't retiring the 744s, instead retiring the 741/2s, they are being used on routes some 744s were running, and those 744s are going onto routes the 741/2s were still running, etc.

But for actually physically replacing the aircraft, the 748 will physically replace the 744s most likely, though not necessarily in the same numbers, as you'll also see more 773ERs brought in. 1 773ER + 1 748 is a more flexible replacement with equal capacity to 2 744s.

And Boeing would be perfectly happy selling 1 773ER and 1 748 for each 2 744s that a carrier has now. List prices are close, margins likely the same, profits near the same.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineGQfluffy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4837 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 4):
Exactly, the question used to be: why buy a 744ER when i can buy a much newer, more efficient 773ER with better range,

Don't know about cargo and efficiency, but isn't the 744ER's range a bit better then the 773ER? But I suppose two engines are better then four...

[Edited 2005-11-17 09:04:35]

User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21472 posts, RR: 60
Reply 8, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4750 times:

Quoting GQfluffy (Reply 7):
Don't know about cargo and efficiency, but isn't the 744ER's range a bit better then the 773ER?

No.

How's that for an answer?  Wink

Actually, at the time of offer, the 773ER had a much shorter range than the 744ER, as well as shorter than the 772ER. But through flight testing, EIS and 1 year in service, the range increased greatly, to greater than the 772ER.

Here's more detail.

772ER: 7730nm, cargo 5000 cu ft max
744 (no belly tanks): 7260nm, cargo 6000 cu ft max
744ER (with belly tanks): 7670nm, cargo 5600 cu ft max
773ER: 7780nm, cargo 7000 cu ft max

Thus by cutting down on the unprofitable discount Y seats but keeping the same # premium seats between the models, some airlines are using the 773ER on routes the 744 used to go, since it actually has greater cargo hold capacity by volume...

You can also see why airlines like those T7s. Cargo capacity out the ying-yang (matched by Airbus 1:1) but with greater range than the A340 counterpart.

Which is why the 748 stretch is important. It adds lots of cargo space (+20%), bringing it back to 773ER levels. So you can then have both 773ER and 748 in your fleet and swap aircraft on routes depending on pax load projected for the season/month/day and not have to worry about having any impact on cargo contracts.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2815 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 4603 times:

The 748 is expected to sell mostly as a freighter. The 773ER is not offered as a freighter.

User currently offlineAF022 From France, joined Dec 2003, 2147 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 4575 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 8):
Which is why the 748 stretch is important. It adds lots of cargo space (+20%), bringing it back to 773ER levels. So you can then have both 773ER and 748 in your fleet and swap aircraft on routes depending on pax load projected for the season/month/day and not have to worry about having any impact on cargo contracts.

What is the expected price difference between the B747-8 and the B773ER?


User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31667 posts, RR: 56
Reply 11, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 4559 times:

AI is scheduled to sign for the B772LR,B773ER,B787s early next year.I wonder if the B747-8 might interest them now since they operate the B744 already.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineIntothinair From Germany, joined Mar 2005, 392 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 4542 times:

Very interesting. I have one question though, does the 773ER have the same seat mile costs compared to the 747-800, more or less. My guess would be that they are the same as the 777-300ER is a twin jet however uses partly slightly older technology than the 747-800 will use. Does anyone actually know?
This really interests me, any answers are greatly appreciated.

Cheers, Konstantin G.


User currently offlineIntothinair From Germany, joined Mar 2005, 392 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 4538 times:

Very interesting. I have one question though, does the 773ER have the same seat mile costs compared to the 747-800, more or less. My guess would be that they are the same as the 777-300ER is a twin jet however uses partly slightly older technology than the 747-800 will use. Does anyone actually know?
This really interests me, any answers are greatly appreciated.

Cheers, Konstantin G.


User currently offlineFlyAUA From Austria, joined May 2005, 4604 posts, RR: 56
Reply 14, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4427 times:

Quoting Kevin (Thread starter):

Again, you can't make that comparison. The B748 is not in the same market segment as the B773, nor the A388. The B748 will have little effect on B773 orders unless airlines are in favour of reducing capacity and increasing frequency of their flights. I still believe the B748 can be a success!



Not drinking, also isn't a solution!
User currently offlineRedChili From Norway, joined Jul 2005, 2211 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4361 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 8):
Thus by cutting down on the unprofitable discount Y seats but keeping the same # premium seats

There's at least one catch to this. Doing this will make upgrades more common. If you have an airplane with a high percentage of premium seats, you will find that many will upgrade from economy class tickets, thus turning the premium seats into "unprofitable premium seats."

Quoting FlyAUA (Reply 14):
The B748 is not in the same market segment as the B773, nor the A388. The B748 will have little effect on B773 orders

Well, that depends on the airline. A few months ago, the rumor at a.net was that BA would replace their B744 with the B773ER. Now, people claim that they will replace it with the B748.



Top 10 airplanes: B737, T154, B747, IL96, T134, IL62, A320, MD80, B757, DC10
User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4309 times:

Quoting Ha763 (Reply 3):
Just look at Boeing's pax numbers for their typical 3-class seating capacity for the 773, 773ER and various the 747s.

773-368
773ER-365
741-366
742-366
743-412
744-416
748-450

Most 773s that have replaced 744s on transcontinental routes hold far fewer passengers, typically in the order of about 310-320. The 744s also typically carry about 400 pax. With the advent of the 748, airlines now have an aircraft that can ferry over 430 pax.


User currently offlineFlyAUA From Austria, joined May 2005, 4604 posts, RR: 56
Reply 17, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4256 times:

Quoting RedChili (Reply 15):
Well, that depends on the airline. A few months ago, the rumor at a.net was that BA would replace their B744 with the B773ER. Now, people claim that they will replace it with the B748.

That is true, but my logic is still correct. An aircraft that can seat ~368 long-haul, is not the same as an aircraft that can seat ~450 long-haul. If BAW decide to make a move from a 368 seater to a 450 seater, then they are compromising in terms of what they initially wanted to order, if it is the case that they wanted the B773 intially.

This is what I mean when I state that they are different aircraft.



Not drinking, also isn't a solution!
User currently offlineMav75 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 228 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2283 times:

All of the above analysis is rather compelling, but there seems to be one major omission. Seating and cargo capacity aside, one major advantage the 748 would have over any 777 or any Airbus (yes, even the A380) would be a hinged nose, allowing forward cargo loading. I will never understand why the A380 was not designed to incorporate this feature. But I'm sure the Airbus lovers will school me on this  Smile

User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21472 posts, RR: 60
Reply 19, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2077 times:

Quoting Mav75 (Reply 18):
Seating and cargo capacity aside, one major advantage the 748 would have over any 777 or any Airbus (yes, even the A380) would be a hinged nose, allowing forward cargo loading. I will never understand why the A380 was not designed to incorporate this feature.

But this was about the pax version. There is no 773F, so it's obviously not about the 748F, which will sell in huge numbers, as freighters go.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineMikkel777 From Norway, joined Oct 2002, 370 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1937 times:

Quoting RedChili (Reply 15):
There's at least one catch to this. Doing this will make upgrades more common. If you have an airplane with a high percentage of premium seats, you will find that many will upgrade from economy class tickets, thus turning the premium seats into "unprofitable premium seats."

There is no really catch. The airline just reduces the amount of Y-seats available for sale, while keeping up the # of premium seats for higher yield. PS is a good example of that.

Quoting RedChili (Reply 15):
Well, that depends on the airline. A few months ago, the rumor at a.net was that BA would replace their B744 with the B773ER. Now, people claim that they will replace it with the B748.

The best replacement for a 744 is, as stated earlier, usually a combination of 748 and 773ER. Routes where 744 were a bit to small, the 748 will do fine, and where the 744 were a bit to large or did not carry enough cargo to run profit, the 773ER wold do fine. Neither 773ER or 748 will be a direct replacement. It is either a increase or decrease in capacity, or change in configuration.

My $0.02 is that BA will go for 773ER on a lot of 744 routes, since it is a frequency/yield-seeking airline, not a mass-transport of low yield riff-raff.


User currently offlineGQfluffy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1920 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 8):
No.

Your numbers seem to make sense. I was just going by the A.net specs.

Cuttin and Pastin...

747-400ER - Range at MTOW 14,205km (7670nm).

vs...

777-300ER - Range with 365 passengers 13,427km (7,250nm).


Is this (for the 744ER) with the belly tanks then?


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8861 posts, RR: 75
Reply 22, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1919 times:

Quoting Mikkel777 (Reply 20):
My $0.02 is that BA will go for 773ER on a lot of 744 routes, since it is a frequency/yield-seeking airline, not a mass-transport of low yield riff-raff.

BA is two airlines, euro fleet, and long haul. I would suggest just about every airline in europe has to do a level of “mass-transport of low yield riff-raff” for leisure travel and short haul.

People fly BA to the UK then onto “low yield riff-raff airlines” like easyjet and ryan air, and in the reverse also.

Guess what I am saying is that if you don’t cater for all market segments, someone will, and that someone could then establish themselves, and grow into your market.

With 57 744's you would need a lot more 773ERs to provide the same number of seats, means higher capital costs, direct and indict operating costs for an airline that is not exactly the most flush with funds.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineMikkel777 From Norway, joined Oct 2002, 370 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1897 times:

Quoting Zeke (Reply 22):
With 57 744's you would need a lot more 773ERs to provide the same number of seats, means higher capital costs, direct and indict operating costs for an airline that is not exactly the most flush with funds.

BA is not interested in keeping the same number of seats on several of their routes.
I never said that 57 744 should be replaced by 773ER, I said on a lot of routes, where 744 is to expensive to operate for the yield it is creating. South Africa, and several destiantions in the Far East comes to mind as ideal 748 routes.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21472 posts, RR: 60
Reply 24, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1883 times:

Quoting GQfluffy (Reply 21):
777-300ER - Range with 365 passengers 13,427km (7,250nm).

A.net has it wrong.

As I said, that was the launch range, not the range after testing.

The "horrible, single engine choice that nobody would want" GE90-115 turned out to be an AMAZING engine, and the other tweaks increased range 500nm through flight testing and 1 year in service.

It also caused Boeing to increase the range for the 772LR by 200nm even before first flight as a conservative estimate they knew it could meet, but it's why some of us think it has another 300nm (9700nm) as designed, which is how 1-2 more body fuel tanks could bring that range to the magic 10000nm, something even Boeing didn't think possible when launching the 773ER/772LR at 7250nm/9250nm ranges a few years ago.

One would also assume, that should Boeing want to, they could certify the 773ER with belly tanks and get the range up past 8000nm to match the 748, but that would eat into some of the cargo space and ability to lift that cargo.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 22):
With 57 744's you would need a lot more 773ERs to provide the same number of seats, means higher capital costs, direct and indict operating costs for an airline that is not exactly the most flush with funds.

But a mix of 35 773ERs and 25 748s would be a similar sized fleet with similar lift but more flexibility, at about the same price as 60 744s (list). I think this is they way BA will go, in some kind of similar numbers if not exactly the same.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
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...
Swiss, Why Do They Have A Ticket Office In NYC? posted Fri Dec 1 2006 04:14:27 by ContinentalEWR
Why Doeesn't NW Have An All PW Fleet posted Mon Oct 16 2006 00:16:39 by FL370
Why Did DL Have To Pay UA To Start LGW-JFK Route? posted Sun Oct 15 2006 22:33:30 by Gilesdavies
Why Does BA Have Cloth Seats At Rear Of B767s? posted Sun Sep 24 2006 20:46:58 by 8herveg
Why Do They Have Gaps With No Windows? posted Mon May 29 2006 20:50:58 by LawrenceMck
Why Doesn't WN Have Red-eye Flights? posted Tue May 23 2006 16:53:55 by RobertS975
Why Doesnt QF Have Premium Economy? posted Wed Apr 5 2006 16:04:50 by Ansett767
Why Doesn't Airbus Have One Manufacturing Plant? posted Mon Jan 30 2006 19:00:11 by B777A340Fan
Why No 748 Pax Orders Yet? posted Fri Dec 2 2005 00:44:35 by AF022
Why Doesn't Etihad Have A FFP? posted Tue Oct 18 2005 15:52:12 by UTA_flyinghigh