AussieErj145 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (14 years 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 1278 times:
I'm no authority on Boeing's marketing ideals, But the simple answer is no way! It would be simply to cost inefficient to produce aircraft with obselete technology.
To my knowledge you can only order the 747-400 as a full Pax or a freighter (Do they still offer combi?)
Having said that however, I'm sure the parts would be available as spares including new engines.
But I really think the only three potential customers
(Bill Gates, Saudi Royal Flight and The Sultan of Brunei)
couldn't care less.
Oxygen From Hong Kong, joined Sep 1999, 674 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (14 years 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 1235 times:
This actually did happen some years ago when the government of Abu Dhabi ordered a 747SP. The aircraft was ordered on 1986, 5 years after the end of the 747sp production ( the second last was built in 1981) and was delivered in 1989. Boeing restarted 747sp production to build this last 747sp. But, you know, United Arab Emirates is a $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ country, so, they don't need to care about the price. Normal airlines would certainly not do it.
Brommerkoplamp From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (14 years 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 1211 times:
For as far I know, the 747-400 domestic uses the same wing as the 747-classic do. Same wing span! (See the Boeing site) So we are practically talking about a new build classic since the fusselage hasn't changed for 30 years.
Dutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 6, posted (14 years 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 1206 times:
I dont think it is any longer possible - the cocpits and avionics of the classic 747 models are very different from the -400s, and the engines that powered the classics are also no longer available. Why would an airline now want an "old-technology" aircraft?
Orlo3 From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 139 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (14 years 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 1182 times:
Isn't Air Force One a 747-200? You can bet that the government didn't use an old 747-200 from another airline. That said, wouldn't boeing have had to build a brand new one (actually two) for the president? It entered service in the late 80's didn't it?
Ilyushin96M From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 2609 posts, RR: 12
Reply 8, posted (14 years 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 1181 times:
Actually, the 747s that serve as Air Force One and its backup incorporate features and parts from both the 747-200 and -400. The engines and systems of the two planes are 747-400 components, while the body and wings are 747-200. The planes also incorporate military technology, including missle countermeasures, special radar and in-flight re-fueling systems. There's alot more to it than that, but I'm just going by what I remember from what I've read on here.
Anyway, it's pretty obvious as well that if the US government goes to Boeing and says, "We want two specially-made 747-200s" and gives Boeing all the specs, that is exactly what Boeing built.
AT From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 1049 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (14 years 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 1166 times:
Irrespective of whether or not Boeing could or would build 747 classics, the broader question I have is Why would any airline want to order a 747-100/200/300 when the -400 is available? Not to mention more modern, more fuel-efficient, etc...
PhilB From Ireland, joined May 1999, 2915 posts, RR: 13
Reply 11, posted (14 years 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 1160 times:
92-9000, the 747 which is most regularly used as Air Force One is, to Boeing, a B747-2G4B and was NOT built after 200srs production had finished, being rolled out in September 1987. Originally having been given serial 86-8900, the aircraft was so long in outfitting and upgrading to the levels of equipment required, the USAF re-serialled the aircraft prior to it being delivered on 20 December 1990.
The other of the pair, 92-8000 was 86-8800, is a couple of months older and went into service on 23 August 1990
Northwest 777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 224 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (14 years 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1121 times:
Did anyone ever hear about a 747-200X? I read an article in ACAR magazine awhile back stating EVA was interested in the proposed 747-200X. What happened to this plan? I'm guessing it would have been a 200 body with the hardware of a 400. I have no idea though because for all I know it could have been a typo. If anyone has any info I would love to hear it. Thanks!
RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8018 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (14 years 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1093 times:
Actually, there's another really good reason why they'll never build the 747-200 series again: the 777-300 and the upcoming 777-300ER.
After all, the 777-300 series has pretty much the seating capacity of the 747-200, but the new 773ER has almost the range of the 747-400 and definitely way less fuel burn per passenger mile than a 742!
KonaB777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (14 years 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1082 times:
This is sort of off-subject, but Boeing did re-open the 767-200 production line when Continental Airlines ordered 767-200ER aircraft. I know the avionics and flight deck are the same as the 767-300, but still, they did it even though physically it is different.
DesertJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7785 posts, RR: 16
Reply 18, posted (14 years 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1078 times:
The one slight advantage of the shorter-upper deck of the older 747s was that is was a good deal lighter. So to mate the 747-400 wing to the shorter upper deck fuselage would maybe have some benefits in slightly increased range. But then you would lose many high yield business class seats.
And that what the 777-300ER and 747-400X are designed to fit.
Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29802 posts, RR: 58
Reply 19, posted (14 years 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1067 times:
It isn't a big trick to reopen production of a line as long as the tooling still exists. One of the reasons why Continental was able to get -200 767's is that Boeing is retaining the -200 tooling for military contracts.
They have chosen to use the 767-200 for any future tanker or AWACS aircraft procurement. This was done after the retirement of the 707 tooling after the Royal Air Force recived their last AWACS aircraft in the early 1990's.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
Exnonrev From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 621 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (14 years 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1065 times:
The 762 was never officially discontinued. There simply hasn't been any commercial demand for it since 1994. A quick check of Bill Harms' site shows one built as a private jet in 1996, and four built for the Japanese AWACS program in 1996-98.
747-451 From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2417 posts, RR: 6
Reply 21, posted (14 years 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1043 times:
I don't think Boeing would do it. there are newer planes that offer more (777, A340). If an airline wants 200's, get them on the used market, there are some available and if they really have their hearts set on it, pay to have them upgraded with modern aviaonics etc.
Megatop747-412 From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 265 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (14 years 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1024 times:
I know KLM did, but as for SQ, they got their new as B747-312s in the 80s... They (SQ) were one of the largest B743 operator of the time, with a total of 14 in service (11 all pax model and 3 pax-cargo combis)...