Kaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 8925 posts, RR: 35 Posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 25225 times:
According to ATW this morning, Boeing is said to be coming around to EK's request to build a special version of the 747-8i, which would be based on the original planned length and have sufficient range to fly DXB-LAX (8400nm). EK's Maurice Flanagan also believes other airlines are interested in this proposal.
No comment from Boeing, but it seems to me that if they do this, they're effectively saying "there's not much happening on the sales front, so we need to go with EK's proposal if we want to sell anymore."?
Scouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 2772 posts, RR: 6 Reply 2, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 25049 times:
If this is the case I wonder if LH will now be receiving a differant plane to the one that they ordered? Or will there be two differant versions of the 748I ?
KrisYYZ From Canada, joined Nov 2004, 1178 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 24984 times:
I am constantly amazed by EKs power with Boeing and Airbus. EK seems to get what it wants all the time from the two manufactures, but I guess Boeing needs B748 customers so bad right now that even a significant modification to the B748I is warranted to secure an order. This just may turn out to be just another EK pr game. But lets say that LH and EK are the only two B748 customers at the time when production of the B748 starts, will it be cost effective for Boeing to build a separate frames for each customer? Or would it be easy for Boeing to build LHs B748I from the same frame as the B748F?
Parapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 495 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 24639 times:
I am really surprised that there are not more posts to this thread. It comes from a good source with an answer expected shortly. If true it beggers belief! They cannot be suggesting 3 versions of 40 copies each! That makes no economic sense.
If EK want range above all then why not turn the cargo version into an "i" version. Then you would have all the range you need (plus a load of beds upstairs).,without the engineering for a third type. If they shorten it for EK then what about (as already stated) the LH order?Would they (LH) still want it (vs 77w). And why does the BA reaction matter so much? If it does ,it suggests that no one will choose the bigger version vs the A380,which is what BA stated. I really do not understand it,but somethings happening. Perhaps this is the answer to all the rumours that no parts were being ordered for the "i". No wonder -if they don't have a finished spec!
Columba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 5638 posts, RR: 5 Reply 5, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 24560 times:
I really hope so and I believe two different versions of the 747I can be a very good sales argument. With the 787, a 747-7I and 747-8I you have a very good family concept especially if Boeing is launching the 787-10.
Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans - John Lennon
Scouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 2772 posts, RR: 6 Reply 6, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 24527 times:
Quoting Columba (Reply 5): I really hope so and I believe two different versions of the 747I can be a very good sales argument. With the 787, a 747-7I and 747-8I you have a very good family concept especially if Boeing is launching the 787-10.
The trouble would be the cost though as each version would require development and certification. They would need to get reasonable sales of all the versions to pay for them. I think that there will be only one I version of the 748 (and I fear that if there isn't some more sales soon) LH will convert their order to the 748F or the 777F and the I will be put on hold.
Keesje From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10189 posts, RR: 52 Reply 7, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 24491 times:
The 747-8i costed hardly any additional investment anyway. 2 x nothing can't be much of an issue
Jokes asside this latest itteration of the 747 passenger no doubt needs the approval of LH.
I'm not sure if they were the one's who pressed for stretch.. A shorter 747 might fit in well /better between the A380 and A340-600 / A350-1000..
Anyway, it shows Boeing is not happy with where they are (internally).
If I was Boeing I would organize a nice week-end with GE, LH, EK, KLM, China, UA and NW fleet managers in a nice place in the Seattle area and have some open, non binding discussions and work shops..
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 4149 posts, RR: 26 Reply 8, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 24413 times:
Making two different lengths does not add that much cost; it is the least costly variation. Changes in wings, landing gear, MTOW, etc. are far more expensive. This may be why Boeing is willing to go this route. As to LH, I suspect they wanted the longer plane and will be getting the longer plane. It will be interesting to see whether Boeing offers the shorter length and then EK decides that they don't want it after all.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
ERAUgrad02 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 1041 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 24378 times:
Interesting. This could be the new 747-SPi or 747-7i. LOL. Would be cool to have.
Flying-Tiger From Germany, joined Aug 1999, 3986 posts, RR: 45 Reply 10, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 24371 times:
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 8): Making two different lengths does not add that much cost; it is the least costly variation. Changes in wings, landing gear, MTOW, etc. are far more expensive. This may be why Boeing is willing to go this route. As to LH, I suspect they wanted the longer plane and will be getting the longer plane. It will be interesting to see whether Boeing offers the shorter length and then EK decides that they don't want it after all.
Problem is that your resale values will go down the drain when you are all of a sudden having two different -800s. Kind of the -SP dilemma. Too few customers to make it attractive on the second-hand market. Plus conversions won´t be so interesting as converted -800is won´t have the same performance / capacity as an original, longer -800F. To sum it up: Having a shorter -800 Pax version won´t really increase the appeal to operators as the resale market will likely not be so pretty.
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 4149 posts, RR: 26 Reply 11, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 24314 times:
Quoting Flying-Tiger (Reply 10): Having a shorter -800 Pax version won´t really increase the appeal to operators as the resale market will likely not be so pretty.
I don't agree. The SP suffered on the second hand market because by the time they were on it the 744 was available, which was much more capable and made the SP unnecessary. Most carriers flying extremely long routes were able to afford new planes, which made the SP an orphan. The same may happen to the shorter 748, but if it proves more popular with the airlines than the longer version, it may not. That is not Boeing's problem anyway; if enough carriers want it to make it worth Boeing's while to build it, then whether or not there will be a secondary market for it is the airline's problem, not Boeing's. As to freighter conversions, they will still be more efficient and capable than 744 conversions, and they will be less capable (no nose door) than new-built 748F's, and there will still be operators happy to get them.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
Slz396 From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 2522 posts, RR: 21 Reply 13, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 24277 times:
Quoting Parapente (Reply 4): Why does the BA reaction matter so much? It suggests that no one will choose the bigger version vs the A380,which is what BA stated.
I think that the message from SQ and even more so BA has finally come across in Seattle.
If Boeing can't even sell the single 748i to its most loyal 747 customer British Airways, despite reportedly offering rock bottom prices and benefiting from the incredibly low dollar vs euro exchange rate NOW, they will probably never going to sell any at normal prices to others.
Singapore Airlines never lets go of an opportunity to mention they will never look at the 747 again because the A380 is more than one step beyond it and British Airways too said the 748 is not a plane they will ever consider again for their future needs, but well informed rumour has it that several other key customers Boeing saw as almost guaranteed 748 operators have told them they have come to the same conclusion as SQ and BA and are in now in serious discussions with Airbus over a number of A380s.
Quoting Parapente (Reply 4): Something's happening. Perhaps this is the answer to all the rumours that no parts were being ordered for the "i". No wonder -if they don't have a finished spec!
The 748i is back to the drawing board AGAIN, being redone yet AGAIN to make the best of it....
Boeing has come to understand the 748i is NO competition for the A380 no matter how hard Boeing ever tries, so better position it in a separate niche segment well below it as EK is asking for. Of course, that requires throwing all the plans into the paper bin and it will have to come with a considerable delay.
Slz396 From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 2522 posts, RR: 21 Reply 14, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 24195 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 12): I think marketing wise Boeing needs to "upgrade' the 747-8i, after it got slashed by BA, SQ, QF and SUH. This means a new name and clearly visible improvements e.g. winglets, superior range, 787 cockpit, PR campaign, high profile customers or ..
Imagine Boeing does what EK asks and turns the 748i into a shortened longer range version of the 747-8i, then how long do you think before other customers or even EK itself will push Boeing for even more improvements to what is essentially still a 35-year old design? I mean, more range and less seats will put the 748i back in its natural habitat, but it doesn't make it a good plane for the 21st century does it? As you say a composite wing, new cockpit and also a FBW system iso all the cables and pulleys are needed for that...
In short, EK is currently putting a lot of effort into convincing Boeing to reposition the 748i right where Y3 will have to come one day, yet I have a feeling that as soon as that is done, it won't take long for them to start bashing the technological state of the design itself and try to force Boeing to commit to an improved design which will essentially be an all new Y3, at a time when they should be doing their Y1.
Jacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 13352 posts, RR: 69 Reply 15, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 24057 times:
Quoting Slz396 (Reply 13): British Airways, despite reportedly offering rock bottom prices
..Really? Got any proof or is this one of your typical unsubstantiated claims?
Quoting Slz396 (Reply 13): Singapore Airlines never lets go of an opportunity to mention they will never look at the 747 again
...and you yet once again never let go of an opportunity to "bash" the competition..
SeJoWa From United States of America, joined May 2006, 140 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 23932 times:
Quoting Slz396 (Reply 13): The 748i is back to the drawing board AGAIN, being redone yet AGAIN to make the best of it....
I'll simply take you seriously. Do you think new engines are 'in the wings' for the 747-8i? Or indeed a new set of lifting devices? Why, if the A380 is the be all and end all, can't Airbus simply dangle the prospect of an -800R version in front of interested parties?
Actually, I'm still rather sceptical concerning the revamped Jumbo (notwithstanding my joyous reception of its launch), a plane Boeing meant to supersede with the triple seven, as far as I recall. At least the freighter is doing well.
Tavong From Colombia, joined Jul 2001, 778 posts, RR: 7 Reply 17, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 23890 times:
Quoting Slz396 (Reply 14):
Imagine Boeing does what EK asks and turns the 748i into a shortened longer range version of the 747-8i, then how long do you think before other customers or even EK itself will push Boeing for even more improvements to what is essentially still a 35-year old design?
But that what EK is doing to every airplane manufacturer, i mean they´re pushing Boeing for a Short 747-8i, they´re pushng Airbus for an A380-900, they´re pushed Boeing for 787-10/11, i mean what´s the matter if the 747 is "a 35 years old design" (that in my opinion is an invalid argument), EK has been pushing airlines do do what they want to do, even if they´re going to buy Dash-8 Q400, or ATRs , they will push hard to make airlines do what they want.
No matter what, Boeing still faces the risk that they change again the 747-8i desing and then EK say "no, thanks".
Gus
SKBO
Colombian coffee, the best...take a cup and you will see how delicious it is.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 16760 posts, RR: 64 Reply 18, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 23801 times:
I'm not going to bother replying to some of the more hyper...hyperbole...being presented, since it won't add any merit to the discussion.
What I will say is that it costs Boeing nothing to say "we're considering" doing something. If EK can "string" Boeing along, so Boeing can "string" EK along. I honestly do not believe EK is serious about buying the 747-8I and I honestly do not believe Boeing is serious about building a "Special Edition" version for them.
Parapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 495 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 23786 times:
Question. Cannot the A380 be given more range quite easily? I thought (but I may be wrong here) that they were not even using the cental "box section" for fuel yet and those wings,they are huge! I would have thought that an aircraft that can go with a full load straight to crusing altitude must be able to load up a little more fuel? Guess I am wrong.
As far as Boeing are concerned.Re my previous thread.Its time to be bold - go BWB !
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 16760 posts, RR: 64 Reply 20, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 23759 times:
Yes, Airbus has the ability to offer an A380-800R with a central fuel tank holding some 70,000 additional liters of fuel, offering roughly another 2000km of range.
I am guessing Airbus has not yet engineered this option, as it was part of the A380-800F program. But they will be able to offer it down the road if customer demand warrants it.
Slz396 From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 2522 posts, RR: 21 Reply 21, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 23665 times:
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 15): Got any proof or is this one of your typical unsubstantiated claims?
We know pretty well what kind of a deal LH got on their 748i launch order: less than half of the list price and a free simulator as reported in the german financial press last year and the situation for the 748i hasn't really improved since last year, so why would Boeing have upped the price?
Besides, don't forget the dollar has declined significantly against the euro and the pound since then, so even if Boeing would offer only the normal percentage discounts and thus charge normally in dollars, the price of a 748i in pounds must look incredibly low when compared to the price of an A380.
Parapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 495 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 23655 times:
Thank you Stitch. I felt that this was the case. Then just what are they going on about (EK). You don't buy a new Kitchen if all you want changed is the sink. (odd parrallel I know - but you know what I mean)). Just demand more range from Airbus and they will give it (EK half owns them!!).
Slz396 From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 2522 posts, RR: 21 Reply 23, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 23604 times:
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 15): you yet once again never let go of an opportunity to "bash" the competition..
I am merely recalling the words of Singapore Airlines' CEO on the 747-8i and the A380, which have since then been echoed by the chairmen of British Airways, Qantas and ILFC amongst others.
Are you blaming me for basing my apparently somewhat unwelcome opinion on the 748 on clear remarks from captains of the aviation industry???
Jacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 13352 posts, RR: 69 Reply 24, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 23602 times:
Quoting Slz396 (Reply 21): Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 15):
Got any proof or is this one of your typical unsubstantiated claims?
We know pretty well what kind of a deal LH got on their 748i launch order: less than half of the list price and a free simulator as reported in the german financial press last year and the situation for the 748i hasn't really improved since last year, so why would Boeing have upped the price?
...so what does it have to do with BA?
Quoting Slz396 (Reply 21):
Besides, don't forget the dollar has declined significantly against the euro and the pound since then, so even if Boeing would offer only the normal percentage discounts and thus charge normally in dollars, the price of a 748i in pounds must look incredibly low when compared to the price of an A380.
..."incredibly"? LH was offered the A380 at "abuse" prices (you can find the quote by Leahy somewhere, I'm not going to bother finding it)..yet LH didn't take it over the B748I...must say something...not to mention, it doesn't matter to Boeing if they sell 300 B748F's and 0 B748I's...the bottom line is ROI...and I'm not going in that direction..
"Up The Irons!"
25 Slz396: If a 748i customer is not entitled to a significant launch customer discount NOW, I don't know what launch customer discounts are for in the first pl
26 Stitch: Multiple aircraft valuation firms all believe LH paid roughly 40-45% off list. I put more credence in their data because it is their job to know thes
27 Art: The A380F is NO competition for the 748F however hard Airbus ever tries. That's what matters. That's what matters. If I design a truck that should at
28 JoeCanuck: I reckon those captains of industry has let at least a couple of opportunities to bash the 747i go buy with nary a comment. What well informed rumour
29 Stitch: It matters only if Boeing didn't offer the 747-8I for sale. It also matters if Airbus never offers an A380-800F that appeals to heavy cargo carriers.
30 Scouseflyer: They've basically given up on pushing the A380F so we'll end up with an even split in the VLA market - Boeing for cargo and Airbus for Pax
31 Jacobin777: ..no, you are simply incessantly taking the opportunity to "bash" the competition just like many did with the A380 when it was undergoing its problem
32 Keesje: The A380 is supposed to have a list price of 319 million at the moment BA ordered. I have not seen / heard anything about BA getting a more 60% disco
33 Ikramerica: If it's true, I really expect the plane to be the size of the current 744 (maybe with a lengthened Upper Dec since this seems to be easily modified on
34 EBJ1248650: Lufthansa got a good deal. The idea, mentioned elsewhere in this thread, that Lufthansa will cancel their current 748i order and go with the smaller
35 Slz396: I see, so the 748I doesn't need any more customers then? Must be quite a business case the 748i has, that NOT selling any is better than selling them
36 DistantHorizon: Are you an aviation fan or an aviation business man? Well, that is what matters since it seems you can not deal with the reality... By the way, Airbu
37 Stitch: The BA list price was actually $280 million when you divide the reported value of the contract at list by the number of firm frames. *shrug* But yes,
38 JoeCanuck: Who knows, (really knows and isn't speculating about), how much it's costing Boeing to produce the 748, passenger and freighter versions? Also, who kn
39 DistantHorizon: Fair enough! But I am much more interested in those marvellous pieces of human creation that enables us to do something our body were not design for:
40 Stitch: And maybe the point is Boeing doesn't care to sell their planes at a loss? Why discount a 747-8I to negative numbers when you can use that slot to bu
41 Bond007: Unfortunately, you can't have one without the other Jimbo
42 Swallow: Well, well... back to EK. Scott Hamilton has his doubts about EK ordering the 748. Quote: 'We’re also hearing it is no better than 50-50 the airline
43 Ikramerica: Resale on the 747 is about F conversions, and with the same MTOW, two lengths of the 748BCF won't be a huge deal in terms of resale. All the current
44 JoeCanuck: I dig speculation as much as the next guy but I do get weary of tin foil hat conspiracies. Having to sift through grandiose claims based on little mo
45 Scipio: Boeing completes 747-8I configuration "As for the airplane's performance, the 747-8 Intercontinental will be stretched 5.6m (18.3ft) from the 747-400
46 Stitch: Further reinforcement of my belief that neither Boeing nor EK are serious about a shortened 747-8I.
47 Flysherwood: Ouch, that one has got to burn!!! What part of the fact that Airbus has failed to reach the 200 sales point, 7 years after launch with the A380, do t
48 DistantHorizon: Would we recognise it if we saw it on Fox News? I don't thing being fan is incompatible with being accurate. But if you want to completely drop all w
49 Aircellist: Stitch, thanks for those well-explained and (in my amateur view) balanced posts (37 and 40). First-class posts from a "first-class member".
50 SEPilot: I agree with you; I believe that Boeing regards EK's wishes with a fair amount of skepticism as to whether they'll actually buy them. As many have al
51 Keesje: Yes, now you bring it up, how is Lufthansa & the 747-8i these days? Everything cool and straight ahead? 1 order for 20 747-8i in 2 years so everythin
52 Flysherwood: And how many 748F have been sold as well in those 2 years. You do realize that Boeing has sold more 747 than Airbus has sold A380 since 2000, don't y
53 Jacobin777: .... ...that is not what I stated.... .... ....I'm glad you understood what Stitch was saying (so Jacobin777 says in an extremely sardonic tone)....
54 Moo: Boeing has sold 199 747's since beginning September 2000 to date. Airbus has sold 185 A380s since March 2001 to date, not including 20 cancellations
55 Stitch: And thank you. I firmly believe that one can have a polite, reasonable, and reasoned discussion on these subjects, even with one's own "prejudices an
57 Slz396: Correction: this can be true for a private EADS shareholder, but is certainly NOT valid for the key institutional shareholders. As I happen to repres
58 Wingman: Two points: 1. pointng out that Beoing is getting the full freighter market while the 380 gets the passenger orders is nothing to be sneered at. Since
59 Flysherwood: Yes, every taxpayers dream!!! To have a "job / works" program disguised as a business enterprise. So, how are the so called institutional investors g
60 SCAT15F: This makes no sense. So a full year of all this weight reduction work, and the performance is still the same? what gives? Maybe this article is only
61 JoeCanuck: What, specifically, are the institutional investors, investing in? Is it EADS? Airbus? The corporations holding the pensions? Government bonds? While
62 SCAT15F: " target=_blank>http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/071106/a....v=29 " target=_blank>http://www.atwonline.com/news/story....10741 These articles seem to be at
63 Ikramerica: the 748 has 88 orders in 2 years. the a380 has 190 or so in 7 (not all firm, but as good as). not sure which is better. neither is spectacular, but t
64 Slz396: it does in continental Europe for the last 60 years. As predicted, the social-democratic market mechanisms are not easily understandable to US reader
65 Scbriml: They needn't be mutually exclusive. Boeing has announced design freeze on the 748i, but could still be considering the "shrunk" version for EK. My pe
66 Bok269: The 747-8 has raked wingtips. Besides which, airlines don't order aircraft based on looks.
67 JoeCanuck: Thanks for not being pompous. I get it. Considering the unemployment rate of the EU, the 380 is a great idea, from a pan-European macro-economic pers
68 Stitch: Indeed it can be, which is something I admittedly have not considered, even though it was staring me in the face. Now, for those who dismiss the A380
69 Stitch: If you knew ahead of time that it wasn't going to make any money, then no. But I submit that in 2000, when the program was launched, that was not a f
70 Moo: Didn't Boeing recently make a big fuss about how the KC-767 program would ensure X number of workers had a job in the United States of America for Y
71 DLPMMM: As someone who has studied economics extensively at universities and has an intimate knowledge in doing business in Europe, I can state authoritative
72 Stitch: Even so, I do not feel that makes Slz396's argument either flawed or without merit. The A380 provides a significant amount of "economic motivation" n
73 Jacobin777: .."my side of the pond"? Say what? EADS is a publicly traded company on various stock exchanges, including the London, Paris and German Bourses..they
74 Moo: While I agree with all your points regarding EADS public vs private, this made me wonder: EADS is only listed on four exchanges - Paris, Frankfurt, Ma
75 Jacobin777: ...sure it does...I can certainly purchase EADS stock here...and even if its not hypothetically offered in the United States, it is still available o
76 Brons2: " target=_blank>http://www.leeham.net/filelib/Scotts...7.pdf Interesting points he makes about revenue opportunity. A few years back, Airbus was clai
77 Bok269: With the exception of a shorter upper deck, similar to the current 747-4F
78 Brons2: Nice reply, but you misquoted SCAT15F. He was talking about the lack of performance improvements on the 748i despite a yearlong study, not the busine
79 Klkla: Your logic is flawed. In order for the comparison to have any meaning you can only compare the time both aircraft have been available. The 747-400 sh
80 Mariner: Why? Even assuming what you say is true, which I don't entirely accept, then as long as you know what you are buying - as any investor should - an in
81 Moo: What makes you think there's logic here at all? The point was made that the 747, not the 747-400 or the 747-8 but 'the 747', has sold more frames sin
82 Moo: I never said anything about it not being a publicly traded company (because it most certainly is), however you made the express comment that if it we
83 Brons2: Interesting. So, irregardless of any royalties made from profits (not likely on the A380) the goverments involved will probably make their money back
84 Mariner: And some made money by buying on the dips. mariner
85 Jacobin777: My comments were specifically about EADS...not about other companies or industries.....case in point, EADS "Power 8" Program. If EADS was a "social j
86 Mariner: I understand that. It always seems to be about EADS, as if EADS exists in isolation from the rest of Europe. mariner
87 SEPilot: You do realize that you have just acknowledged the entirety of Boeing's WTO argument?
88 Jacobin777: ..in theory I guess you might be correct...but I don't feel it takes away from the crux of my argument... I was making sure we were clear on that.
90 Whales: I have just recieved an email from Boeing stating that they firmed there configuration to 5.6m, and not the shorter configuration, so it looks like EK
91 Jacobin777: ...I guess we're back to "square one"..ok, maybe "square 1.5"....
92 GeorgeJetson: When Boeing first announced that the 747-8F was going to be longer than the 747-8i, this simply did not make any sense to me. For one thing, up until
93 Scipio: It's not actually that difficult. From a private shareholder perspective, what matters is profit. From a public policymaker's perspective, what matte
94 Glideslope: Yes, very cool. Let's see where this goes?
95 SeJoWa: What has worked in Europe is the free market. I just wonder why, in your putative system, Germany as the financially most powerful European country d
96 SEPilot: It is probably not a matter of fuel capacity so much as MTOW, and there are probably limitations (landing gear, wings) that would make increased MTOW
97 SeJoWa: Excellent. Thank you. Pls add the "Africanus" as your customary honorific.
98 GeorgeJetson: Boeing's latest news release just came out: Boeing Completes 747-8 Intercontinental Firm Configuration Here is a quote from this news release: As for
99 EI321: Obviously that 58% figure will change slightly if the seating capacity has changed since then. Infact there are several factors that will have altere
100 Ikramerica: This thread should be locked as not only is it way off point, but the underlying premise was false to begin with, proven by new releases a few hours l
101 Flysherwood: That is called a DEFENSE contract, not a commercial aircraft that has no guaranteed orders!
102 Alessandro: Is there any pilot training costs that can be a reason for a shorter b748i version?
103 Moo: Way to pick pointless boundaries to a pointless discussion - a 'jobs program' is a 'jobs program', regardless of whether its producing civil aircraft
104 DEVILFISH: I think this answers the topic question with finality..... http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...shortened-747-8i-for-emirates.html Quote: "Boeing wi
105 Astuteman: Bit early to say that, yet IMO..... Me too. They specifically wanted the longer one. Quite excellent post, sir What part of the fact that, after a 2
106 Flysherwood: And what part of GENEROUS delay compensation do you not understand kept those orders in place.
107 FRNT787: Quoting Columba (Reply 5): I really hope so and I believe two different versions of the 747I can be a very good sales argument. With the 787, a 747-7I
108 Flysherwood: REALLY?!?! I never would have guessed that.
109 Jacobin777: .......however your Astuteman, you don't let your proclivity get in the way of facts (something which I nor many others can say here).....
110 Astuteman: Generous delay compensation wouldn't have saved any of these orders on its own. FWIW there were a goodly number of posters who predicted the cancella
111 Lumberton: Nothing is final on a.net, my friend! The debate will rage, and rage,and rage. I think this decision by Boeing effectively kills the chance for the 7
112 Astuteman: Thanks muchly J777. My comments notwithstanding, the 787 sales record puts a context on the discussion, doesn't it? Regards
113 Flysherwood: The discussion in fact was about a commercial aircraft program and the fact that an institutional buyer doesn't care about ROI because it produces jo
114 Flysherwood: I was not one of them and I would have to agree with you wholeheartedly! But the compensations did save orders with Malaysia, Thai and Virgin Atlanti
115 Pnwtraveler: Boeing has always brought out the baseline aircraft and then modified it from there with versions. They recently have said that further improvements w
116 Stitch: Any compensation TG was to get would still have left them holding the bag for $90 million in non-refundable deposits, which is why they're keeping the
118 SCAT15F: This is really pathetic. Firm configuration was delayed for a year to work on weight reductions, which supposedly were made (enough at least to gain
119 Stitch: Considering the 787, the A380, and the A350 have all seen their weights rise and their mileage shrink as they reached firm configuration, that Boeing
120 SEPilot: I believe that EK has been trying to play Boeing against Airbus, and had no intention of actually ordering the 748i; Boeing has realized that and cal
121 BHMBAGLOCK: ... and this helps the institutional investors how? I can potentially see a small reduction in tax liability if the governments pass along SS and pen
122 Alangirvan: Why does EK have to wait for a shorter 747-8i to fly to US West Coast? They can fly there now with 777-200LRs or A340-500s. They can do a combination
123 Astuteman: That's fair, Flysherwood, and FWIW, I don't recall you being one of those posters.. Completely right, Stitch IMO. I suspect you're gonna have to wait
124 Ikramerica: It's always been my argument. EK was full of hot air on this. They could easily dedicate 77Ls to the USA west coast and equip them with the same numb
125 Tdscanuck: Why would you install winglets when raked wingtips give better performance? I think JAL and Boeing would beg to differ with you on loyalty regarding
126 Airbusted: quoting Ikramerica "If you can fill a 400 seat plane with decent yield with 80 premium seats and 320Y, you can fill a 280 seat plane with better yield
127 Scbriml: I think EK has a better idea of what they need than anyone here. They clearly wanted a 400+ seater to fly DXB to West Coast USA. It seems Boeing was
128 NorthstarBoy: This, of course, is not unprecedented, if it comes to pass. Boeing built it's reputation, and it's success on building airplanes that met the needs of
129 Keesje: or Boeing hoped to sell many 753s, 764s, 748i's, 739's, 736's, 783's etc. but thought they knew better then the market..
130 Stitch: Probably because EK only wanted an Airbus plane for the mission - i.e. the A380-800R.
131 SEPilot: Good point, but it only works if the customer is willing to buy the planes. EK, IMHO, is unlikely to buy from Boeing unless the Boeing plane is head
132 GeorgeJetson: And let's not forget the Boeing 707-138/-138B, which was a custom short fuselage longer-range variant built specifically for Qantas. Then there was t
133 Scbriml: I'm not as convinced as you that they wouldn't have taken the 748I (had Boeing offered the shorter version), especially given they have 748Fs on orde
134 Stitch: I just do not believe EK was waiving a check at Boeing for 10 or 20 747-8I "Shorties" and Boeing told them to get stuffed. I believe EK was waiving a
135 Ikramerica: It was a very different time. Safety wasn't nearly what it is now, flight testing was less intense, tolerances were lower, fudge factors were higher,
136 SM92: Just curious: Can't Boeing add auxillary tanks to the tail of the 747-8 for extra range? Didn't the 747-400 have tanks in the tail area?
137 Tdscanuck: You could, but it would be at the expense of considerable payload so it may well not be worth it. There are also some safety concerns with horizontal
139 SCAT15F: Are they going to make an announcement about boeing/748?
140 Scbriml: They could do, but the smart money isn't on it.
141 Stitch: They did, in that they ordered the A350-1000 instead, which is what I have believed all along.
142 PM: ATW Online reports today (Thursday 15th) that the deal may still be on. http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=10823 Boeing, Emirates still
143 Stitch: How much weight can two meters save? And how hard could it be to shave that weight or add the tankage necessary to get the extra 300nm out of the 5.6m
144 Keesje: " target=_blank>http://www.atwonline.com/news/story....10823 Boeing has enjoyed considerable success with the 747-8I program, with sales so far toppi
145 Stitch: Or they know something we don't... Seriously, they're lumping 747-8I and 747-8F orders together.
146 MSYtristar: As they should. The 747-8 family has sold over 100 airframes. Not too shabby so far. I'll repeat this for the folks who choose to ignore reality: the
147 Parapente: The 748-f has been a phenominal success. So much so you really have to wonder at Airbus. The moment the 748 came out ,those who had ordered the 388c w
148 Keesje: "Airbus says the A380F will carry 150 tons. Airbus has sold nearly 200 A380's so far."
149 MSYtristar: Very true. But from the standpoint of financial return for the companies, 100+ 748's is better for Boeing than 200 A380's are for Airbus.
150 Stitch: The..."problem"...with the A380F is that while it has class-leading range and class-leading lift, heavy cargo operators do not need that range and th
151 SCAT15F: Hey Everyone, a news release from today In The Australian Business quotes Scott Carson, head of Boeing Commercial Airplanes, as saying "Boeing and GE
152 Birdbrainz: There's more to it than that. All other things begin equal, a shorter plane also has less aerodynamic drag. As an interesting side comment: my father
153 DEVILFISH: I wonder if the phrase "aircraft configuration improvements" translates directly to a "shrink"?
154 Rheinbote: I thought the 747-8F has horizontal stab tanks, not for range but rather for CG control? What about the -8I?
Sponsor Message: 
From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 8925 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 1988 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 2772 posts, 
From Canada, joined Nov 2004, 1178 posts, 
From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 5638 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10189 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 4149 posts, 
From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 2522 posts, 
From Colombia, joined Jul 2001, 778 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
