Keesje From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 9843 posts, RR: 51 Posted (1 year 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 21234 times:
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- Boeing said Friday it has moved the delivery of its first 747-8 Freighter plane to the third quarter of 2010 from its original target of late 2009. Further, the Chicago aerospace company also delayed the first delivery of its 747-8 Intercontinental passenger jet to the second quarter of 2011, from late 2010. Boeing said the new schedule reflects the impact of supply-chain delays due to design changes, the limited availability of engineering resources, and the recent machinist strike that had stopped commercial aircraft production for 53 days. Shares of Boeing were down 3.4% to $41.68 in premarket trading.
What everyone being involved in recent threads on this subject already knew but didn't want to believe. It's probably a ~9 month delay at least.
IMO not bolstering the slow selling 747-8i's market position. Customers now have an contractual back door out, if they want to. Depending on the conditions negotiated..
N328KF From United States, joined May 2004, 5589 posts, RR: 7 Reply 2, posted (1 year 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 21167 times:
Quoting Keesje (Thread starter): Customers now have an contractual back door out, if they want to.
Why would you say this? Most of us don't know what the specific contracts for the 747-8 say, but we do know that many of the A380 contracts were for 24 months. Nine months seems like an awfully short time to have a contractual out...penalties may apply, sure, but I doubt this allows an airline to simply walk.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
Keesje From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 9843 posts, RR: 51 Reply 3, posted (1 year 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 20944 times:
Quoting N328KF (Reply 2): Why would you say this? Most of us don't know what the specific contracts for the 747-8 say, but we do know that many of the A380 contracts were for 24 months. Nine months seems like an awfully short time to have a contractual out...penalties may apply, sure, but I doubt this allows an airline to simply walk.
We know the market situation, credit crunch. The A380 is first of a new family, cancellation risk therefor low. The 747-8i is the last subtype of a last version & no metal has been cut. Hardly the same situation.
9 Months is what is the official delay now. Will it be the only delay ? Nobody knows. What we do know is a recent trackrecord on 787, KC767, Wedgetail, strikes, 747-8 cost rises, etc. So at this stage we can not exclude the possibility of further delays.
People at Lufthansa and Boeing are scratchchin their heads and looking at various scenarios. It will be interesting to hear if Lufthansa say anything but the standard "we are fully comitted" kind of phrases.
NA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 6843 posts, RR: 8 Reply 4, posted (1 year 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 20857 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 3): People at Lufthansa and Boeing are scratchchin their heads and looking at various scenarios.
The 748I deliveries for LH are timed with the scheduled retirement of the first batch of 744s, although I have not heard anything about a 1:1 replacement. When the 78Is come, the hard-worked early 744s will be 21-23 years old. Its not tragic if this replacement is delayed by 9 months unless there is D-check issue with one of the frames. A secondary effect of the 748I delivery is fleet growth, which of cause is now effected.
Frigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 402 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (1 year 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 20843 times:
Quoting N328KF (Reply 2): Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
Customers now have an contractual back door out, if they want to.
Why would you say this?
Because Keesje hopes the 747-8i program will be cancelled. But it's not gonna happen
Quoting N328KF (Reply 2): Nine months seems like an awfully short time to have a contractual out...penalties may apply, sure, but I doubt this allows an airline to simply walk.
Of course, airlines could cancel their orders - but for free? If the plane misses its performance guarantees by a mile, probably yes. But not because of late delivery.
The delay in itself is no news really, as the image in Zeke's post shows (as he does in nearly all 748 threads ). But 9 months is somewhat more than I expected. Let's hope Boeing have put some slack in their new schedule.
flown on: 146,318,319,320,321,AB6,332,343,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,742,74E,744,752,762,763,772,77E,773,77W,E90,F50,M11,M82
Chiad From Norway, joined May 2006, 404 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (1 year 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 20850 times:
Quoting Keesje (Thread starter): What everyone being involved in recent threads on this subject already knew but didn't want to believe. It's probably a ~9 month delay at least.
IMO not bolstering the slow selling 747-8i's market position. Customers now have an contractual back door out, if they want to. Depending on the conditions negotiated..
Oh my....
Boeing really has its hands full with delays, strikes and other stuff they have to solve.
And I doubt that this is the last delay for the B748 that we've seen.
And I'm not even going to mention the B787 .... arrrr .. I just did.
If LH actually takes this backdoor then I think the shop will be closed, but that's just me.
Ikramerica From United States, joined May 2005, 18424 posts, RR: 60 Reply 9, posted (1 year 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 20707 times:
Whatever currency Boeing had in being the 'reliable' company after Airbus's A380 delays + A350 re-re-boot is gone and then some. At this point, Boeing looks like an incredibly mismanaged mess.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Ikra: "Whatever currency Boeing had in being the 'reliable' company after Airbus's A380 delays + A350 re-re-boot is gone and then some. At this point, Boeing looks like an incredibly mismanaged mess.
Now I wouldn't say that. I think everybody knows what happened. The economic boom made Boeing commit to timetable they could not realize.
On top of that Boeing is "lucky" oil prices have dramatically decreased during recent months making it less of a burden to fly older less efficient aircraft a bit longer (+pushing forward transisation costs), the airlines have problems getting credit to finance new aircraft and traffic is going down limtting the need for growth capasity..
So the customers probably are less aggressive, they have other things on their minds..
PlanesNTrains From United States, joined Feb 2005, 2200 posts, RR: 12 Reply 11, posted (1 year 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 20372 times:
Quoting Keesje (Thread starter): Customers now have an contractual back door out, if they want to. Depending on the conditions negotiated..
Quoting Keesje (Reply 3): We know the market situation, credit crunch. The A380 is first of a new family, cancellation risk therefor low. The 747-8i is the last subtype of a last version & no metal has been cut. Hardly the same situation.
9 Months is what is the official delay now. Will it be the only delay ? Nobody knows. What we do know is a recent trackrecord on 787, KC767, Wedgetail, strikes, 747-8 cost rises, etc. So at this stage we can not exclude the possibility of further delays.
In other words, you're guessing and sensationalizing. What's frustrating is that I was just looking at another thread before this one, and was thinking of how you seemed to have "mellowed" over the years. Guess I was wrong.
Quoting Keesje (Reply 11): Ikra: "Whatever currency Boeing had in being the 'reliable' company after Airbus's A380 delays + A350 re-re-boot is gone and then some. At this point, Boeing looks like an incredibly mismanaged mess.
Now I wouldn't say that. I think everybody knows what happened. The economic boom made Boeing commit to timetable they could not realize.
Some would argue that committing to an unrealistic timetable is a sign of a mismanaged mess, but if you feel better defending them on an obvious issue like this, go for it.
ERAUgrad02 From United States, joined Nov 2005, 1016 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (1 year 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 20361 times:
I do not know if this has been brought up but do you think we may see a 747-8i Air Force ONE? I ask this because aen't the current birds based off 747-200?
Danny From Ireland, joined Apr 2002, 3270 posts, RR: 6 Reply 13, posted (1 year 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 20362 times:
Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 12): Quoting Keesje (Reply 3):
We know the market situation, credit crunch. The A380 is first of a new family, cancellation risk therefor low. The 747-8i is the last subtype of a last version & no metal has been cut. Hardly the same situation.
9 Months is what is the official delay now. Will it be the only delay ? Nobody knows. What we do know is a recent trackrecord on 787, KC767, Wedgetail, strikes, 747-8 cost rises, etc. So at this stage we can not exclude the possibility of further delays.
In other words, you're guessing and sensationalizing. What's frustrating is that I was just looking at another thread before this one, and was thinking of how you seemed to have "mellowed" over the years. Guess I was wrong.
Like it or not but cancellation of 748i is the best solution for Boeing at this time. Sometimes its better to swallow bitter pill like Airbus did by cancelling A380F and move on.
SCAT15F From United States, joined Feb 2007, 318 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (1 year 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 20349 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 11): PS. It seems 1 747-8i has been cancelled in this weeks overview. A VIP aircraft.
That's a very bad sign.
Airbus could have a Trent XWB A380 ready to go by the time the 748i enters service.
I believe Boeing has no choice but to compensate for the late entry by improving performance specifications, or else they are not going to get any more airline customers. They have to go for more composites, specifically, a composite wingbox, and also improvements to the GEnx 2b-67. That should enable revised specs to be 8300 nautical miles at mach .86 with 479 passengers (crown space galley stowage) at the same 975K TO weight.
That should be enough to compensate for any A380 improvements between now and 2011.
DfwRevolution From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (1 year 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 20133 times:
Quoting Danny (Reply 14): Like it or not but cancellation of 748i is the best solution for Boeing at this time. Sometimes its better to swallow bitter pill like Airbus did by cancelling A380F and move on.
What on earth makes you say that? The -8I is a minimal cost derivative once the -8F is developed. It's likely that the LH order alone is more than enough to cover those additional costs and turn a positive ROI.
If LH cancels or defers their order (like UPS and FedEx did with the A380F) then I could agree with you. But LH hasn't canceled nor have they hinted at canceling, so you are being entirely premature.
Quoting Keesje (Reply 11): On top of that Boeing is "lucky" oil prices have dramatically decreased during recent months making it less of a burden to fly older less efficient aircraft a bit longer (+pushing forward transisation costs)
If you drown someone, they're not going to come back to life when you pull them out of the water. The relief in oil prices will not be enough to bring back the A340-500/600, which were the only true "victims" of the oil shock. High oil prices likely helped the sales of the A330 and 777, and the A320/737NG equally.
PlanesNTrains From United States, joined Feb 2005, 2200 posts, RR: 12 Reply 17, posted (1 year 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 20100 times:
Quoting Danny (Reply 14): Like it or not but cancellation of 748i is the best solution for Boeing at this time. Sometimes its better to swallow bitter pill like Airbus did by cancelling A380F and move on.
First, that's your opinion, and I respect that. Second, it has nothing to do with what I was saying. But thanks for reading my mind and sharing it with the group.
For the record, Danny, there's the phrase "Lose early, and lose gracefully". If Boeing is indeed going to eventually pull the plug on the 748i, I would prefer they do it now. Happy?
Quoting NorCal (Reply 17): He is just more eloquent and adds pretty pictures.
Manfredj From United States, joined Mar 2007, 822 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (1 year 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 19763 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 11): I think the current situation regarding the Boeing 747-8i will make airlines cautious, so probably waiting with ordering until it flies
Who knows what the financial situation will be two months...let alone two years down the road. Fact of the matter is, any betting man would put their money on any aircraft from any manufacturer being late. This could be a good thing for airlines wanting to put off their deliveries until more stable times.
Timetables are not set in stone; they are a guage of we can expect to see the merchandise in its full figure.
Keesje: The 748 is already being put together. The odds of it being scrapped are the same as you jumping for joy the day it flies. If it doesn't fly, the shipping industry is in big trouble as there are NO other VLA freighters on the market. Simple as that.
PlanesNTrains From United States, joined Feb 2005, 2200 posts, RR: 12 Reply 19, posted (1 year 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 19687 times:
Quoting Manfredj (Reply 21): Keesje: The 748 is already being put together. The odds of it being scrapped are the same as you jumping for joy the day it flies. If it doesn't fly, the shipping industry is in big trouble as there are NO other VLA freighters on the market. Simple as that.
I'm pretty sure it's only the 748i - not the F - that he thinks should/could be shuttered.
ER757 From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 1230 posts, RR: 7 Reply 20, posted (1 year 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 19651 times:
Quoting Keesje (Thread starter): Customers now have an contractual back door out, if they
As Ronald Reagan once said. "Well, there you go again." You just aren't going to be happy unless LH cancels their order, are you? Will you still be predicting the demise of the 748i when the first revenue producing flight departs FRA?
That item aside - while not surprised to read this, it is disappointing. Boeing's track record of late is pretty dismal and not getting better. Lord knows what surprises await us once the 787 begins flight tests........
PlanesNTrains From United States, joined Feb 2005, 2200 posts, RR: 12 Reply 21, posted (1 year 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 19583 times:
Quoting ER757 (Reply 23): As Ronald Reagan once said. "Well, there you go again." You just aren't going to be happy unless LH cancels their order, are you? Will you still be predicting the demise of the 748i when the first revenue producing flight departs FRA?
A 748i cancellation could theoretically still happen. Given the current situation with Boeing and the world economy, it becomes a bigger possibility (even if still small) every week. You and I both agree that the world is a different place than it was when the 748i was launched, and so as things change, the case for the 748i has changed as well.
The problem is, Keesje (and folks of the same mind on this issue) might say "See, I've been telling you for three years...". However, the theoretical basis for this point of view is different in many ways than the reality behind it.
It'd be like me saying "That Kite will never fly!" before it was even made. I think it's because the shape of it is off. When the time comes, it doesn't fly, and I proclaim victory. However, the reason the kite didn't fly was not because of design, but because the weather had changed and there was no wind. Yes I was right. But it was more luck than anything else.
LH is still on board. Sorry Keesje. Cargolux too, of course, but now they need to scramble to find some capacity in the short term. This is assuming that they aren't privately smiling that with an economic slowdown they don't have extra capacity coming online that they might not need.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
PlanesNTrains From United States, joined Feb 2005, 2200 posts, RR: 12 Reply 24, posted (1 year 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 19508 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 26): This is assuming that they aren't privately smiling that with an economic slowdown they don't have extra capacity coming online that they might not need.
Now, I really do believe that Lufthansa will eventually fly the 748i, but the link you provided is actually the most "748-negative" comment I've seen from LH.
Quote: So far no exact new delivery date has been announced. Suggestions for a later delivery appointment are now being discussed with Boeing. Lufthansa holds on to the ordering of 20 B747-8.
"Holds on to" almost sounds like they are about to lose the grip. And the talk about LH not receiving any details from Boeing about the new delivery date, "so far no exact new delivery date has been announced," almost gives the impression that Lufthansa is saying, "We'll wait until we get a new date, and then we'll make up our minds."
This seems logical to me. They have calculated their business plan with 20 jets of the payload 7 range of the 748. Unless Airbus is launching an A387 (or whatever the number would be) with similar specs I don't see why a few months delay would lead to cancellation. Late 2010 to second quarter 2011 is less than half a year imo. Besides Luthansa Technik wants to play a role for other 748 customers so LH would probably the last to step out.
There's still a long way to go before all the alliances deserve a star...
Stitch From United States, joined Jul 2005, 15918 posts, RR: 64 Reply 27, posted (1 year 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 19029 times:
Quoting Danny (Reply 14): Like it or not but cancellation of 748i is the best solution for Boeing at this time. Sometimes its better to swallow bitter pill like Airbus did by cancelling A380F and move on.
Nobody has yet been able to tell me exactly how throwing hundreds of millions to billions of dollars away benefits Boeing. If it is a defensible position to take, then somebody should be able to defend it.
I'd really like an answer, because I have certainly spent enough time telling people exactly why it doesn't benefit Boeing.
Danny From Ireland, joined Apr 2002, 3270 posts, RR: 6 Reply 28, posted (1 year 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 18978 times:
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 17): What on earth makes you say that? The -8I is a minimal cost derivative once the -8F is developed. It's likely that the LH order alone is more than enough to cover those additional costs and turn a positive ROI.
That's a.net myth. I will not believe that 20 deeply discounted frames will pay for R&D plus their manufacturing cost (which is the highest on first frames). There are no more customers on the horizon and 748i is holding up scarce engineering resources badly needed on 787.
Keesje From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 9843 posts, RR: 51 Reply 29, posted (1 year 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 18048 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 30): Nobody has yet been able to tell me exactly how throwing hundreds of millions to billions of dollars away benefits Boeing. If it is a defensible position to take, then somebody should be able to defend it.
I'd really like an answer, because I have certainly spent enough time telling people exactly why it doesn't benefit Boeing.
Because development costs reach their maximum when you really set up dedicated production for just 20 aircraft and its support organisation for 30 yrs.
On the -8i, Boeing is before the bumb.
Boeing sold got the 747-8i contract a yr after they launched the program. No reason to believe LH did not get normal launch discounts, contrary. Boeing expected to sell many more at that time.
Since then Boeing announced additional development costs for the 747-8 twice. Now addition delay compensation to LH and the VIP customers is likely.
Anyone who still thinks Boeing will somehow mysterically make profits on the 8i?
I think people that say Boeing must build the -8i no matter what, should wonder if they are really supporting the company..
DfwRevolution From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 30, posted (1 year 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 17572 times:
Quoting Danny (Reply 31): That's a.net myth. I will not believe that 20 deeply discounted frames will pay for R&D plus their manufacturing cost (which is the highest on first frames)
Not according to those who are close to the program. What is so hard to believe about this? This is not a clean-sheet program, Boeing has the heritage of the passenger 747-400 to draw upon. Aside from cabin fittings developed for the 787, the only significant change from the 747-8F and passenger 747-400 is a new window line which is itself drawn from an existing Boeing aircraft, the 777.
It won't cost Boeing proportionately more to offer the 747-8I as it did the 747-400ER. 20 frames is plenty to cover those costs.
Quoting Keesje (Reply 32): On the -8i, Boeing is before the bumb.
But they are well past the bump on the combine -8I and -8F program, which is what actually matters. For example, what unique tooling fabrication will be required for the 747-8I that hasn't already been spent from the -8F or can be drawn from the 767/777?
SCAT15F From United States, joined Feb 2007, 318 posts, RR: 0 Reply 31, posted (1 year 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 17532 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 32): I think people that say Boeing must build the -8i no matter what, should wonder if they are really supporting the company..
Well, at a minimum, if LH converts the 20 options, Arik buys its 4 and a few more BBJ orders are picked up.
50 748i's should should make a reasonable economic case, and i think this number is definitely within reach.
Besides, I think LH sees value in having an aircraft that is so popular and recognized (some people will fly LH just to ride the 748). That's worth a few seats right there.
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 970 posts, RR: 0 Reply 32, posted (1 year 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 17261 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 32): Boeing sold got the 747-8i contract a yr after they launched the program. No reason to believe LH did not get normal launch discounts, contrary. Boeing expected to sell many more at that time.
Since then Boeing announced additional development costs for the 747-8 twice. Now addition delay compensation to LH and the VIP customers is likely.
Anyone who still thinks Boeing will somehow mysterically make profits on the 8i?
Your arguments are very convincing Keesje. You could very well be right, but as a fan of aviation and as a fan of some diversity left in the air, I hope at least as many B748 I's & F' s will be built as Boeing has sold so far. And I do hope they gain some new orders, especially in the freighter market.
The passenger market should best be left to the A380. Too new and too good anyway, a fact that I am very happy about. But not seeing new B748's would be a sad thing to me, no matter what the numbers say!
Stitch From United States, joined Jul 2005, 15918 posts, RR: 64 Reply 33, posted (1 year 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 17198 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 32): Because development costs reach their maximum when you really set up dedicated production for just 20 aircraft and its support organization for 30 yrs.
However, as DfwRevolution noted here - and I have noted ad nauseum everywhere else - Boeing has already spent the significant majority (I would comfortably guesstimate 75% or more) of all the money they will spend on the 747-8I program (not counting the actual production costs of the frames themselves).
And again, it is not like the 747-8I is a distinct model that shares nothing in terms of parts with the 747-8F. Every 747-8, Intercontinental or Freighter, will draw from a significant pool of common parts. And the parts that are absolutely distinct to each model and non-interchangeable between them will be the significant minority of the case. So Boeing is not going to have to maintain a parts inventory of 30 sets of 10 million components (or however the hell many a 747-8I needs) 30 years that will collect dust until a 747-8I needs a rivet or something.
As I have said before and evidently will have to keep saying until the first one in LH colors lands at FRA, it will cost Boeing more money to build no 747-8I's then it will cost to build 20 at this point in the program.
Especially when LH continues to publicly say they want the damned things.
ER757 From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 1230 posts, RR: 7 Reply 36, posted (1 year 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 16581 times:
Quoting Chiad (Reply 38): I think Keesje's postings are based on foresighted and well considered thoughts.
And his photos with pics and graphs are so refreshing.
I have to agree for the most part - but when it comes to the 748i, he seems to be beating the drum especially hard to try and convince us (or maybe himself) that the 748i isn't economically viable. He may very well be right - Lord knows there are plenty out there to this day that feel that way about the A380 and it's in service! That being said, he does take the time to explain his position and how he comes to his conclusions.
What I would like to ask you Keesje, is what do you think is the magic number for this program? The one that would need to be reached in order for you to greenlight it if you were in charge? If Arik makes their MOU a firm order and let's say CI says "we'll take ten please" or maybe UA suddenly falls into a pile of money and asks for a dozen, is that enough?
SYfan100 From United States, joined May 2008, 470 posts, RR: 0 Reply 37, posted (1 year 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 16357 times:
Right now I would not be a very happy customer with Boeing.
Granted strikes happen. I can understand that part.
But from day one the Boeing 787 and 747 were on the delay charts because they already had supply problems.
To me that is no excuse to continue to go with a supply company that can not meet the basic requirments for supplies for aircraft parts.
If I were a Airline customer with Boeing, I would tell them that every airplane that is on order for my Airline will be free!
There is no excuse for delay after delay when a good dozen Airlines jumping in line to order the Boeing 787 after it was introduced. Then several jumped in the Boeing 747-800 line when that plane was introduced.
Boeing needs to step up to the plate and start getting its affairs in order! Because some unkown aircraft maker that has a better operation, will come out of no place and take all of their customers.
Airbus may turn things up a notch and take the lead like several years ago for airplane orders.
Tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 5639 posts, RR: 56 Reply 38, posted (1 year 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 16016 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 3): The 747-8i is the last subtype of a last version & no metal has been cut.
Metal's been cut...has been for several months, actually.
Quoting Chiad (Reply 8):
If LH actually takes this backdoor then I think the shop will be closed, but that's just me.
Which shop are we talking about?
Quoting ERAUgrad02 (Reply 13): I do not know if this has been brought up but do you think we may see a 747-8i Air Force ONE? I ask this because aen't the current birds based off 747-200?
It comes up from time to time...there's really no reason to kill the current VC-25's...they're basically state of the art for their purpose (they're a looooooooong way from the production configuration), they just got done with a major refit, and they're pretty low utilization. The move from the 707 to the 747 gave a huge space increase...what would moving from a -200 to a -8 do?
Quoting SCAT15F (Reply 15): Quoting Keesje (Reply 11):
PS. It seems 1 747-8i has been cancelled in this weeks overview. A VIP aircraft.
That's a very bad sign.
Yes...of the economy. Any private buyer with that kind of cash probably watched 30-50% of their net worth (more, if it was oil) disappear in the last 6 weeks.
Quoting SCAT15F (Reply 15): I believe Boeing has no choice but to compensate for the late entry by improving performance specifications
How would that work? If they have improvements to deploy easily, they'd deploy them anyway. Improvements that aren't easy to deploy take more time and more money, both things I suspect Boeing does not want to throw at the program (and customers don't want either).
Quoting SCAT15F (Reply 15): They have to go for more composites, specifically, a composite wingbox
What would that do? It would cost more, take a huge whack of additional engineering, and not be all that much lighter.
Quoting SCAT15F (Reply 15): and also improvements to the GEnx 2b-67.
Such as? That's already a state of the art engine...what's left to do?
Quoting Danny (Reply 29): There are no more customers on the horizon and 748i is holding up scarce engineering resources badly needed on 787.
Other way around...787 is holding up engineering resources originally slated for the 748.
Quoting Keesje (Reply 30):
Because development costs reach their maximum when you really set up dedicated production for just 20 aircraft and its support organisation for 30 yrs.
Except that graph you showed is showing *normalized* cost and, by looking at the curves, it looks like they normalized them all to one. So it tells you relative distribution of each cost through the life cycle, but doesn't tell you anything about how much each cost is relative to the others.
Zeke From Hong Kong SAR, PRC, joined Dec 2006, 4744 posts, RR: 65 Reply 39, posted (1 year 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 15481 times:
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 40): So it tells you relative distribution of each cost through the life cycle, but doesn't tell you anything about how much each cost is relative to the others.
We will never know as Boeing "don't provide specific details on the issues the program is having from a cost perspective"
All we know is that
"Higher costs reported by the 747-8 development program in the third quarter are causing frustration with Boeing's corporate executives, but the widebody is continuing to make design progress despite the strike.
Boeing's third quarter earnings statement released yesterday contains two references to "additional 747 program costs", but does not elaborate.
Jim McNerney, Boeing chairman, president and CEO, noted executives are "frustrated by the incremental cost we're seeing" on the 747-8 during a conference call with reporters."
DocLightning From United States, joined Nov 2005, 7122 posts, RR: 44 Reply 40, posted (1 year 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 15394 times:
They're delaying the 748?
OMG what a shocker.
I am still curious to know, however, what LH seems to know that everyone else doesn't. They're not idiots and I have every reason to think that they have a good reason to be ordering the plane, but I can't figure out why they're the only ones.
N14AZ From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 921 posts, RR: 1 Reply 41, posted (1 year 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 14793 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 42): They're not idiots and I have every reason to think that they have a good reason to be ordering the plane, but I can't figure out why they're the only ones.
Good question. I think LH can only win in this situation. Here is my theory:
1.) Big discount
It's obvious to all that they received a huge discount. So, they are getting brand new "used-to-be-called-VLA"-planes for a very tempting price and will use it for a certain period of time.
Beside new engines and modified wings it's a very proven aircraft for LH.
2.) Conversion to a freighter later
If they feel that they should not use it any longer as a passenger aircraft (but why should this happen?), they can sell it for conversion into freighter aircraft.
Imagine, in that time - let's say 10 to 20 years from now - there won't be too many B 747s available for conversion to a freighter.
3.) LH Technik
As mentioned above, LH Technik has a long reputation of maintaining B 747s. I have the feeling that they are even exclusively maintaining all present VIP B 747s in HAM. In FRA they are maintaining freighters.
When operating 20 B748i they will become a kind of a first address for maintenance works for the B748Fs and the BIP 748s.
Here are some regular visitors of LH Technik in HAM:
Danny From Ireland, joined Apr 2002, 3270 posts, RR: 6 Reply 42, posted (1 year 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 14554 times:
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 40): Quoting Danny (Reply 29):
There are no more customers on the horizon and 748i is holding up scarce engineering resources badly needed on 787.
Other way around...787 is holding up engineering resources originally slated for the 748.
Fair point but potential revenue and profits from 787 (as well as liability if they "get it wrong") justify it. I dont' see justification for pumping more scarce resources into 748i as returns are not there.
Jambrain From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2008, 130 posts, RR: 0 Reply 43, posted (1 year 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 14373 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 34): As I have said before and evidently will have to keep saying until the first one in LH colors lands at FRA, it will cost Boeing more money to build no 747-8I's then it will cost to build 20 at this point in the program.
What I don't get about this flame war is why the B advocates think that 747-8i is good for Boeing, it seems to me that when we look back in 20 years the launch of non next gen VLA by B will only delay the introduction of a true game changing aircraft.
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 40): Such as? That's already a state of the art engine...what's left to do?
As I'm sure you know each new engine e.g XWB to B787 to A380 to A340 to 777 is a few % points of SFC, I don't know if GEnx-2B on 747-8i has any new technology over 787 GEnx-1B
Columba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 5610 posts, RR: 5 Reply 45, posted (1 year 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 14094 times:
I see LH stay committed to the 747-8I and maybe Boeing gives them a discount on further 747-8Is (LH´s 747 fleet chief mentioned a year ago that he can see LH needing around 50 aircraft), or even freighters.
Maybe this delay and a bigger discount on 787-9s could convince LH more to go settle for the 787 instead of the A350.
LH ordered several more A32x, A330 and A346 after the A380 delay many of them as part of a compensation deal, I think LH is having good finance and business people that will work something out with Boeing and LH is a too important customer for Boeing to let them walk away.
Huge Airbus customers orders new Boeings first time in years than walks away after the delay and settles for more Airbus aircraft, that would be no good reputation for Boeing !!
Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans - John Lennon
Frigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 402 posts, RR: 0 Reply 46, posted (1 year 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 14044 times:
Quoting Jambrain (Reply 45): What I don't get about this flame war is why the B advocates think that 747-8i is good for Boeing, it seems to me that when we look back in 20 years the launch of non next gen VLA by B will only delay the introduction of a true game changing aircraft.
Maybe, in 5-10 years, it will appear that it would have been better if the 748i hadn't been developed. But that's the big advantage of hindsight, isn't it? IF LH remains the sole operator of the 748i, and doesn't convert any options. But now, it's too soon to tell. I still believe we will see more operators, although I doubt we'll see more than 100 in service.
The point is: Boeing has already invested an amount of many in it, and pulling the plug doesn't recover that amount of money. And Stitch has pointed out why it's still better to build the ones that were sold. And really, the 787 problems were not caused by the 748i program, and I don't think the 787 would fly a day sooner if the 748i hadn't been developed.
flown on: 146,318,319,320,321,AB6,332,343,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,742,74E,744,752,762,763,772,77E,773,77W,E90,F50,M11,M82
Jambrain From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2008, 130 posts, RR: 0 Reply 47, posted (1 year 6 days ago) and read 13709 times:
Quoting Frigatebird (Reply 48):
The point is: Boeing has already invested an amount of many in it,
That money is spent, despise what some A.neters argue; certifying a passenger aircraft takes a lot of engineering effort (even if that money is recouped from 20 frames it still carries an opportunity cost). Those engineers could be more (imho) productively applied to a 777 / 747 replacement project. (not that I'm in any way biased wrt GE exclusivity)
Keesje From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 9843 posts, RR: 51 Reply 48, posted (1 year 6 days ago) and read 13557 times:
Quoting ER757 (Reply 37): What I would like to ask you Keesje, is what do you think is the magic number for this program?
Long time ago someone gave me a college on aircraft development costs, with cashflows , break even point, nett present values etc. When the first aircraft gets delivered a positive cashflow starts working on the positive site. I remember graphs that show that about 20 aircraft is a worst case. To many to avoid full scale production, to small an amount to get any economies of scale. Examples are VFW614, Concorde, etc.
Developing, testing, certifying setting up a production line and actually building 20 examples of the 747-8i is an enormous investment. Any positive ROI is far away. How much aircraft are needed depends on price negotiated. I think any carrier paying a premium for the unproven 747-8i to make a strong move towards break-even is an illusion at this moment.
I think at some point Boeing (and Lufthansa) will come to the conclusion there are 10 better ways to invest their resources. A win-win.
1. Speeding up / reducing costs on the Boeing 747-8F line
2. Getting the first 50 787s out of the hangar.
3. Getting in the air the 787-9 before the A350-800 takes shape.
4. Develop 787-10 and possibly 787-3 medium haul enhancement
5 launch Boeing 777 Enhanced versions to put a brake on A350XWB sales
6. Develop a Boeing 737/ A320 replacement
7. Developing a competitive tanker for the USAF
8. Developing a C5 replacement C17 version
9. Bringing up a superior light heli for the new US competition
10. Work on a state off the art 375-500 seater to defend the large but shrinking market share 350+ seat segment.
Boeing says they are short on engineers. Resourses are sparse, choices will be made.
And Lufthansa? Well they have A380, 747-400 & A340-600, are consolidating in Europe and need to replace 19 MD11Fs at some point..
Think Boeing 787-3, just wing tips, delayed indefinately with orders from 2 key launch customers and 600 787s on order. Any ratio that doesn't apply to the 8i?
LH is still on board. Sorry Keesje. Cargolux too, of course, but now they need to scramble to find some capacity in the short term. This is assuming that they aren't privately smiling that with an economic slowdown they don't have extra capacity coming online that they might not need.
I do not think that Lufthansa will jump ship. However, imho the above source is not exactly what I would call rock solid. I seriously doubt that Lufthansa top brass have rushed to discuss the implications of the latest Boeing delay with S. Ahmad of fleetbuzz. So the "source" probably is more of the nature "my uncle knows some in-laws whose neighbors have friends working at Lufthansa who have heard that someone has said that he has heard...."
Anywway, the delay is a nice bargaining chip for Lufthansa as they are probably not in a terrible haste to replace the 747-400s. So it is either some more money in the bank or discounts for future orders as there are certainly penalties clauses built into the contract.
Columba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 5610 posts, RR: 5 Reply 50, posted (1 year 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 13239 times:
Quoting Vfw614 (Reply 51): Anywway, the delay is a nice bargaining chip for Lufthansa as they are probably not in a terrible haste to replace the 747-400s. So it is either some more money in the bank or discounts for future orders as there are certainly penalties clauses built into the contract.
Agreed and as I said above Boeing is very likely interested in keeping LH as a happy customer so they will work something out.
I also believe once the 747-8 rolls out we will see further orders, the days in the industry are hard and 747-8I and A380 sized aircraft are not comparable with A320/737 and A330/787 sized aircraft.
Airbus has won some orders for the A380 since the 747-8I was offered but not that many new customers.
Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans - John Lennon
NorCal From United States, joined Mar 2005, 1606 posts, RR: 3 Reply 51, posted (1 year 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 13152 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 50): Developing, testing, certifying setting up a production line and actually building 20 examples of the 747-8i is an enormous investment. Any positive ROI is far away. How much aircraft are needed depends on price negotiated. I think any carrier paying a premium for the unproven 747-8i to make a strong move towards break-even is an illusion at this moment.
Most of the costs of the 747-8I can be spread over the 747-8F too. You continue to ignore the amount the commonality between the 8I and 8F including the parts, R+D, and assembly line tooling. The 747-8I is also drawing on a lot of other programs like the 787 interior and 777 windows. They also have the research of all the previous 747 variants to draw on as well. Those costs aren't being spread over just 20 aircraft, but over 100 with options on nearly 50 more. If there were significant differences between the 8I and 8F and they weren't so far along with the project then your argument might hold water.
Here are the common things:
-They both will feature the same stretch length (most if not all the tooling can be shared)
-They both will feature the same wing improvements
-They both will feature the same powerplants
-They both will feature an upgraded cockpit based on the 787
-They both will feature the same flight control upgrades
These are the most expensive upgrades and they are all common to both frames.
Here are the differences:
-The hump (stretch studied under 747-Xstretch program)
-The windows, however the windows are the same as the ones on the 777
-The interior, however it is the interior borrowed from the 787
"Rapid decompression leads to involuntary exiting of the Aircraft"
Airbazar From United States, joined Sep 2003, 3922 posts, RR: 9 Reply 52, posted (1 year 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 12900 times:
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 16): What on earth makes you say that? The -8I is a minimal cost derivative once the -8F is developed. It's likely that the LH order alone is more than enough to cover those additional costs and turn a positive ROI.
The more this gets delayed the more expensive the aircraft becomes but even this is the least of the problems. In my opinion the bigger problem for Boeing is that the 8i is squeezing much needed resources from the 787 program as well as delaying future programs. All of this is being reflected in their stock price. And for what? So they can have a couple dozen aircraft produced? What kind of value does that bring to Boeing?
Jacobin777 From United States, joined Sep 2004, 13323 posts, RR: 69 Reply 53, posted (1 year 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 12797 times:
Quoting Vfw614 (Reply 50): However, imho the above source is not exactly what I would call rock solid. I seriously doubt that Lufthansa top brass have rushed to discuss the implications of the latest Boeing delay with S. Ahmad of fleetbuzz.
You obviously don't know who he is and what his sources/connections are which is ok as you do have a right to an opinion..no matter how incorrect (and/or misguided) it is...
That being said, you are more than welcome to do your own "due diligence" and share with the board...
Stitch From United States, joined Jul 2005, 15918 posts, RR: 64 Reply 54, posted (1 year 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 12799 times:
Quoting Jambrain (Reply 44): What I don't get about this flame war is why the B advocates think that 747-8i is good for Boeing, it seems to me that when we look back in 20 years the launch of non next gen VLA by B will only delay the introduction of a true game changing aircraft.
It isn't good for Boeing. I don't think they ever should have bothered with the 747-8 program because the -8I was never a threat to the A380-800 and the A380-800F was never a threat to the 747-400ERF.
But now that Boeing has invested years of time and billions dollars into the program and now have years of production worth even more billions dollars from it, they might as well just keep going.
Quoting Keesje (Reply 49): 1. Speeding up / reducing costs on the Boeing 747-8F line
Not having to build a 747-8I will allow Boeing to deliver a 747-8F faster, but it will make each of those 747-8Fs more expensive to build.
Quoting Keesje (Reply 49): 2. Getting the first 50 787s out of the hangar.
I was not aware Boeing was building a second FAL in 40-22. Though it will be cool to watch 747s and 787s move down the same line.
Quoting Keesje (Reply 49): 3. Getting in the air the 787-9 before the A350-800 takes shape.
Why? Once the A350-800 is defined, Boeing can work to improve on it with the 787-9.
Quoting Keesje (Reply 49): 4. Develop 787-10 and possibly 787-3 medium haul enhancement.
Those programs won't happen for upwards of five years. Stopping the 747-8I won't bring them to service any sooner. Nor will completing the 747-8I make them take any longer.
Quoting Keesje (Reply 49): 5. launch Boeing 777 Enhanced versions to put a brake on A350XWB sales.
I doubt that will happen, since it has not worked for the A330. The current 777 will secure another 300-500 orders through the end of next decade and then either move into "maintenance" mode ala the 767 line or be retired and replaced with a new model (ala the 757 line).
Quoting Keesje (Reply 49): 6. Develop a Boeing 737/ A320 replacement
The only things really holding that up are the engine manufacturers and the fact that airlines keep ordering hundreds of 737NGs per year, pushing the backlog deeper and deeper into the next decade.
Quoting Keesje (Reply 49): 7. Developing a competitive tanker for the USAF
It's the 767 or nothing. The 777 is too big and the USAF has already stated they cannot afford a new aircraft design that is custom-tailored to their desires and requirements.
There is no way a C-17 can be scaled to C-5 dimensions and capacities. And again, the USAF is not going to be allowed the hundreds of billions necessary to develop and build a brand-new strategic heavy lifter. They will soldier on with the C-5M.
Quoting Keesje (Reply 49): 9. Bringing up a superior light heli for the new US competition.
Notice a trend? The days of unlimited defense budgets are over, and this would be true regardless of who takes control of the White House and the Congress in 2009. Boeing is not going to be given the luxury of developing an entirely new helicopter. So it is the CH-47 or nothing.
Quoting Keesje (Reply 49): 10. Work on a state off the art 375-500 seater to defend the large but shrinking market share 350+ seat segment.
That market is no longer viable. Even if Boeing clean-sheeted a new plane in that capacity, it would be eclipsed by larger models of the A380 (-900 / -1000). It may not be economical for Boeing to even try and replace the LR777 at this point, instead just working on to make the 787-10 the top of the line and aimed to the A333/772/77E market.
SparkingWave From Korea, joined Jun 2005, 646 posts, RR: 0 Reply 55, posted (1 year 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 12704 times:
We have seen with the A380 that airlines will wait for aircrafts that they have ordered. If LH can wait 2 years for an A380, they'll wait 9 months or so for the Boeing.
These days, having an airplane ready on time doesn't seem to matter so much as long as it gets produced within a certain threshold of time. For some strange reason it seems to matter more mostly to people on this site.
I just hope that Boeing doesn't end up losing the same billions of dollars that the A380 program has hemorrhaged. Does anyone have recent profit/loss figures of the state of both airplane models in 2008?
Flights to the moon and all major space stations. At Pan Am, the sky is no longer the limit!
Vfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 2791 posts, RR: 6 Reply 56, posted (1 year 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 12625 times:
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 55): You obviously don't know who he is and what his sources/connections are which is ok as you do have a right to an opinion..no matter how incorrect (and/or misguided) it is...
I did not mean to say that he has no idea what he is talking about. But making final decisions at Lufthansa is up to the two-tiered board. And as far I am aware of, since the announcement by Boeing was made, none of the two have met. So all we have at this point are assessments by individuals, probably at some subordinate management level (probably such as a VP fleet management). Which is nice, but certainly not rock solid.
Airbazar From United States, joined Sep 2003, 3922 posts, RR: 9 Reply 57, posted (1 year 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 12617 times:
Quoting SparkingWave (Reply 57): We have seen with the A380 that airlines will wait for aircrafts that they have ordered. If LH can wait 2 years for an A380, they'll wait 9 months or so for the Boeing.
The difference being that there is nothing that even comes close to match what the A380 has to offer, especially as far as floor space, while most 748i missions will be feasible with existing and upcoming aircraft: 773, A350-1000
Gorgos From Greece, joined Dec 2007, 229 posts, RR: 0 Reply 58, posted (1 year 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 12479 times:
Quoting SparkingWave (Reply 57): We have seen with the A380 that airlines will wait for aircrafts that they have ordered. If LH can wait 2 years for an A380, they'll wait 9 months or so for the Boeing.
With the backlog both manufacturers have, there's not really another option then to wait. Choosing another airplane model from either manufacturer will almost certainly result into an even longer wait.
I agree with Stitch. Though hindsight and therefor useless, the B747-400ERF would have probably secured most or all B747-8F orders. For a long time Boeing targeted the B747-8i as an A380-800 competitor,or at least tried to sell it like that. I think most must realize that doesnt hold up anymore, making the case for developing the B747-8 even smaller.
I really hope that it gets built. It will be one of those rare machines at airports that will give a bit of variation amids all of those a320/b737 and a350/b787.
Stitch From United States, joined Jul 2005, 15918 posts, RR: 64 Reply 59, posted (1 year 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 12486 times:
Quoting SparkingWave (Reply 57): Does anyone have recent profit/loss figures of the state of both airplane models in 2008?
I doubt such a thing exists in the public domain, to be honest.
And also to be honest, at this point it doesn't matter for either program. The bulk of the monies have been spent. Now the only hope is to keep plugging along building kit in the hope that it at least all washes out in the end.
Tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 5639 posts, RR: 56 Reply 60, posted (1 year 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 12382 times:
Quoting Jambrain (Reply 44): What I don't get about this flame war is why the B advocates think that 747-8i is good for Boeing, it seems to me that when we look back in 20 years the launch of non next gen VLA by B will only delay the introduction of a true game changing aircraft.
Boeing doesn't have the resources to do a whole new program on top of the 787 right now. So it was the 747-8i (or something like it) or do nothing, which would basically mean ceded the passenger VLA (or near VLA, or whatever we're calling it) to Airbus. I think the 747-8i is there to plug a hole in the product line for a while.
Quoting Chiad (Reply 45):
I'm 100% convinced that that B748F will enter service.
OK, we're on the same page. Thanks for clarifying.
SparkingWave From Korea, joined Jun 2005, 646 posts, RR: 0 Reply 61, posted (1 year 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 12363 times:
Quoting Airbazar (Reply 59): The difference being that there is nothing that even comes close to match what the A380 has to offer, especially as far as floor space
Floor space is not the only factor, especially when it comes to airline orders and purchases. And I disagree - the 747 does come close to the A380 in many other respects, otherwise it would not be used so much to compare with the A380 in these forums. It would also not have been ordered by LH.
Flights to the moon and all major space stations. At Pan Am, the sky is no longer the limit!
FrmrCAPCADET From United States, joined May 2008, 626 posts, RR: 0 Reply 62, posted (1 year 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 12142 times:
So little demand for VLAs that there is no need for anything beyond the 380/748, with anticipated improvements they are/will do very well efficiency wise. There is no way, I can see to recover costs of huge capital costs beyond what is being done. And the 787/350 with improvements are going to be challenging CASM, and likely surpassing RASM. Given the last few years of the Phoenix like resurrection of 330/777 sales we should take the lesson that excellent versus cutting edge technology is pretty powerful in the market place.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
Jambrain From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2008, 130 posts, RR: 0 Reply 63, posted (1 year 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 12056 times:
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 60): Boeing doesn't have the resources to do a whole new program on top of the 787 right now. So it was the 747-8i (or something like it) or do nothing, which would basically mean ceded the passenger VLA (or near VLA, or whatever we're calling it) to Airbus. I think the 747-8i is there to plug a hole in the product line for a while.
I do mostly agree, but I am arguing that to have the "plug" will stop B from needing to commit to a new game changing aircraft, one that will benefit B in the long run. Once they have a product in the market it will discourage an announcement on Y3 (if that's what the project still is).
If Boeing are right that the VLA market is <1000 frames over next 20 years not having a product for 5-7 years is not that big a deal. The 777 is a strong enough competitor to prevent Airbus making too high a margin on 380. Boeing need to be more worried about A350 and what their response is to that.
(not that I'm in any way biased wrt GE exclusivity on 748)
Airbazar From United States, joined Sep 2003, 3922 posts, RR: 9 Reply 64, posted (1 year 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 12013 times:
Quoting SparkingWave (Reply 61): Floor space is not the only factor, especially when it comes to airline orders and purchases. And I disagree - the 747 does come close to the A380 in many other respects, otherwise it would not be used so much to compare with the A380 in these forums. It would also not have been ordered by LH.
Only LH knows why it ordered the 8i. The fact that only one carrier has ordered tells me that there is no demand for it and that airlines are happy with the other offerings on the market. None of the large current 744 operators has ordered the 8i and that should say it all. My suspicion is that at the time the 8i was launched, LH had little trust in Airbus coming out with the A350-1000 in a timeline that suited them. In other words, their commitment to the 8i was a hedge against the A350-1000 more than a bet in favor of the 8i.
PlanesNTrains From United States, joined Feb 2005, 2200 posts, RR: 12 Reply 65, posted (1 year 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 11895 times:
Quoting Jambrain (Reply 47): Those engineers could be more (imho) productively applied to a 777 / 747 replacement project. (not that I'm in any way biased wrt GE exclusivity)
Well, that's great IF Boeing is ready to proceed with one of those programs. Until then, they need to be working on something, and Boeing apparently believes that this is worth the resources.
Quoting Airbazar (Reply 52): The more this gets delayed the more expensive the aircraft becomes but even this is the least of the problems. In my opinion the bigger problem for Boeing is that the 8i is squeezing much needed resources from the 787 program as well as delaying future programs. All of this is being reflected in their stock price. And for what? So they can have a couple dozen aircraft produced? What kind of value does that bring to Boeing?
But how many resources is the "i" using relative to the entire 748 program? In other words, it seems to be implied that the passenger variant is using an inordinate amount of resources, but in reality, it might very well be that there aren't all that many folks working exclusively on the "i".
So canceling the "i" would require a write-off of the investments made so far, a relinquishing of the "i" orders to date, and a higher unit cost for the "F". And in the end, the resources gained by this cancellation might be negligible in the big picture at Boeing.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 54): It isn't good for Boeing. I don't think they ever should have bothered with the 747-8 program because the -8I was never a threat to the A380-800 and the A380-800F was never a threat to the 747-400ERF.
But now that Boeing has invested years of time and billions dollars into the program and now have years of production worth even more billions dollars from it, they might as well just keep going.
You should just get this made as a pop-up, so that you can save yourself the typing every time someone decides to question the present situation. I mean, you're going to get Carpal Tunnel!
Travelhound From Australia, joined May 2008, 253 posts, RR: 0 Reply 66, posted (1 year 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 11666 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 30): On the -8i, Boeing is before the bumb
What is interesting about your graph is that it shows the majority of the costs come at the tooling design and tooling fabrication stages. The 748i is very different to a clean sheet design like the A380 in that almost all of the infrastructure, tooling and logistics network is existing taking this element of the equation out of the scenario.
I'd suggest to cancel the 748i would not only result in a situation where the monies invested in the project would be lost, but additional provisions would need to be made to write off plant and equipment and shut down the 747 operation (staff redundancies (intellectual knowledge), etc). On top of that Boeing would be liable for the contracts signed with suppliers. All in all there would be some very serious money being thrown away.
On the flip side, with all of the infrastructure, systems, technical staff already in place there is plenty of upside if the program can be maintained.
My opinion is the whole basis for the thread is fallacy. It's based on a pre-supposed premise that the 748 will be a flop. Today it has just over 100 orders (20 billion dollars) for a model that will have a product life up to and beyond(?) 2020. We don't have any real hard facts or evidence to suggest the 748 as a whole will fail. We are judging the performance of Boeing at its lowest moment.
Considering the 744 did 600+ sales over 20 years, 300+ sales over ten years for the 748 seems like a reasonable outcome and one that can realistically be achieved.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 54): It isn't good for Boeing. I don't think they ever should have bothered with the 747-8 program because the -8I was never a threat to the A380-800 and the A380-800F was never a threat to the 747-400ERF.
If Boeing can achieve sales of around 300 units (60 billion dollars) over a ten-year period the 3 billion dollar investment represents something like 5% for each aircraft sold. A line of thinking could be, it is better to spend the money to make sure you have a competitive product that operators will definitely want, than not spend the money and run the risk of operators looking at alternative aircraft types.
On top of that if Boeing can price a premium into the 748 over the 744, than the extra revenues earned could offset the development costs of the aircraft.
I think Boeing made the right decision, I just think they have just got a fair bit going on at the moment which is making things a little difficult for them.
SCAT15F From United States, joined Feb 2007, 318 posts, RR: 0 Reply 67, posted (1 year 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 11677 times:
Keesje has valid arguments.
I think we can all agree that we hope Boeing sells enough to make the 748i a worthwhile investment.
In the end however, I think a lot of us are hoping the 748i is built even if there are no more orders, because its such a beautiful aircraft, (and everybody loves a four-holer).
Yes, if you take all his suppositions as given and believe all his "facts" than his arguments hold. But if you don't…
It's a similar argument to those against the 787-3, and that program looks to be dead or dying. And Keesje has always been against that one too.
It is a similar argument to the A380F question (and why it was effectively canceled), a program that he has always supported. So part of his reasoning comes from his desire for a result, not from studying the actual situation at hand, because he's inconsistent in which programs make sense and which don't.
And yet ultimately, some of the arguments against the A380F, 787-3 and the 748I are valid. And the result was to ditch the A380F and likely ditch the 787-3, so ditching the 748I is not out of the realm. But I think ultimately it will be built. Is that the best idea? Who knows…
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 5639 posts, RR: 56 Reply 69, posted (1 year 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 11623 times:
Quoting Travelhound (Reply 66): What is interesting about your graph is that it shows the majority of the costs come at the tooling design and tooling fabrication stages.
No, it doesn't. The areas under all those curves are 1. They normalized the curves to the actual dollar cost of each factor. The graph only shows you how each cost is distributed in time, not what the actual cost is (or even the relative size of each cost).
For example, engineering could cost $10 billion and tooling could be $1 million and you could get that exact graph.
Alessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 71, posted (1 year 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 11326 times:
Some wild ideas, if the future aviation market is very depressed and the difference in efficency
between the B744 and B748 is huge. Could we see upgrade kits from the B744 to the B748?
EBJ1248650 From United States, joined Jun 2005, 1532 posts, RR: 2 Reply 73, posted (1 year 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 10856 times:
Quoting RedChili (Reply 25): "Holds on to" almost sounds like they are about to lose the grip. And the talk about LH not receiving any details from Boeing about the new delivery date, "so far no exact new delivery date has been announced," almost gives the impression that Lufthansa is saying, "We'll wait until we get a new date, and then we'll make up our minds."
How about "Holds on to" meaning they remain committed? And consider Boeing can't give a new delivery date until it has its own good idea when that might be!
AirNZ From United Kingdom (Northern Ireland), joined Feb 2005, 3016 posts, RR: 12 Reply 74, posted (1 year 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 10695 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 68): Yes, if you take all his suppositions as given and believe all his "facts" than his arguments hold. But if you don't… Wink
It's a similar argument to those against the 787-3, and that program looks to be dead or dying. And Keesje has always been against that one too.
Yes, you are making a fair point but, then again, isn't a.net a discussion forum although many are using it as if their verdict is definitive. How many others on here give suppositions and 'official facts' but which turn out to be nothing more than their own opinion? I've said before that I don't agree with everything, or the method, but I don't see him doing any more than what many others are doing. If it's his opinion, it's his opinion and he is entitled to hold whatever views as equally as anyone else. At least, I'll give him credit for not trying to distance himself from previous opinions and comments as many do, when it suits or they were shown to be wrong.
Tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 5639 posts, RR: 56 Reply 75, posted (1 year 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 10623 times:
Quoting Travelhound (Reply 70): Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 69):
For example, engineering could cost $10 billion and tooling could be $1 million and you could get that exact graph.
Fair enough comment, but I would suggest for an aircraft the tooling / infrastructure / set-up costs would be somewhere around the development costs.
Absolutely agreed...I didn't mean to imply that the actual costs were $10 billion and $1 million, or even in that ratio. It's just important to recognize that a chart with normalized curves doesn't let you figure out what the actual values, or the ratios, are.
All that graph tells you is that engineering cost and tooling fab have different distributions in time (which isn't surprising). It doesn't do anything to tell you what the tooling fab is relative to any other cost, which was what it was originally posted to justify.
Keesje From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 9843 posts, RR: 51 Reply 76, posted (1 year 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 10533 times:
What about the Risk Sharing -8i suppliers (bins / seats / galleys / lavs / entertainment systems / airco / floors / avionics / upperdeck / lighting / windows / escape systems / manuals). How do they feel going to the bank for setting up a production line for 2x shipsets?
Stitch From United States, joined Jul 2005, 15918 posts, RR: 64 Reply 77, posted (1 year 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 10504 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 76): What about the Risk Sharing -8i suppliers (bins / seats / galleys / lavs / entertainment systems / airco / floors / avionics / upperdeck / lighting / windows / escape systems / manuals).
Yeah, what about them? How do you think they will respond to Boeing telling them to "never mind" about delivering the product they've spent money on "now" in order to be in a position to produce and deliver "later"?
Since they have orders with future revenue from deliveries to the 747-8I program, I would imagine that makes their banks feel better about loaning them money they know will be paid back.
Astuteman From United Kingdom (England), joined Jan 2005, 6192 posts, RR: 85 Reply 78, posted (1 year 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 10148 times:
Quoting SCAT15F (Reply 14): Airbus could have a Trent XWB A380 ready to go by the time the 748i enters service.
I believe Boeing has no choice but to compensate for the late entry by improving performance specifications
More significantly, IMO, Airbus WILL have a 4.5 tonne lighter, 2% better SFC A380 coming off the line, at around the time the 748i now looks to be entering service.
You don't need to go as far as the Trent XWB..
The 748i looks to have a bigger and bigger hill to climb, performance wise, as time goes by.
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 30): But they are well past the bump on the combine -8I and -8F program, which is what actually matters
The 748F isn't going anywhere, and for me, this makes the 748i worth proceeding with.
Quoting SparkingWave (Reply 55): We have seen with the A380 that airlines will wait for aircrafts that they have ordered
We have seen the airlines waiting for an aircraft they thought was well worth waiting for, despite desperate efforts on here to convince us to the contrary.
Let's hope that LH feel the same about the 748i
Quoting SCAT15F (Reply 67): I think a lot of us are hoping the 748i is built even if there are no more orders, because its such a beautiful aircraft, (and everybody loves a four-holer).
Keesje From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 9843 posts, RR: 51 Reply 79, posted (1 year 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 10051 times:
It would be interesting to know what Leahy's men are doing.
The 747-8F orders seems safe. Airbus has limitted possibilities to offer anything in the 100 tonnes 747-8i and 747-400F converted freighter market.
On the 747-8i, maybe Leahy is sitting on his hands, watching from the side line.
..or working out some scenarios to "help out" Lufthansa. A340-600 discounts/ early slots, early A380 slots (ILFC?), financing a few 747-400 D-checks / upgrades, launch discounts on A350-1000, a few cheap A333s.. or a combination of those.
Rheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 797 posts, RR: 6 Reply 80, posted (1 year 4 days ago) and read 9979 times:
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 78): More significantly, IMO, Airbus WILL have a 4.5 tonne lighter, 2% better SFC A380 coming off the line, at around the time the 748i now looks to be entering service.
You don't need to go as far as the Trent XWB..
The 748i looks to have a bigger and bigger hill to climb, performance wise, as time goes by.
On the other hand more time can also give the 748 a better efficiency. Depends on the tasks Boeing plans to do in the meantime. More profound, why is the 748 delayed at all? If the reasons are not performance-misses (e.g. production or supplier issues) Boeing would have more time to improve the performance and the efficiency. Otherwise Boeing faces indead a steeper and steeper hill to climb.
Quoting Keesje (Reply 48): 1. Speeding up / reducing costs on the Boeing 747-8F line
2. Getting the first 50 787s out of the hangar.
3. Getting in the air the 787-9 before the A350-800 takes shape.
4. Develop 787-10 and possibly 787-3 medium haul enhancement
5 launch Boeing 777 Enhanced versions to put a brake on A350XWB sales
6. Develop a Boeing 737/ A320 replacement
7. Developing a competitive tanker for the USAF
8. Developing a C5 replacement C17 version
9. Bringing up a superior light heli for the new US competition
10. Work on a state off the art 375-500 seater to defend the large but shrinking market share 350+ seat segment.
These are all Boeing issues. I see LH as a happy 748 customer as any can be. LH will never cancel. There is not one disadvantage for LH with this deal. Price is surely good, the 748 capability is needed and the delay is less than the A380. LH has no problem. For Boeing a pullout is much more tempting. They surely have more lucrative programs to spend development resources. So I agree with your assessment but only half (the Boeing side) with the motivations behind it.
Astuteman From United Kingdom (England), joined Jan 2005, 6192 posts, RR: 85 Reply 81, posted (1 year 4 days ago) and read 9915 times:
Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 80): On the other hand more time can also give the 748 a better efficiency
I've no doubt the 748 will also improve over time. But I'm concerned that getting the basic engineering done is priority one at present, and that's going backwards.
The engine makers might be able to tweak a % with the extra time. In this respect, though, the A380 had the advantage of being able to back-fit technology from more modern engines to upgrade them.
The 748 doesn't have this luxury - it already has the most modern engines..
Keesje From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 9843 posts, RR: 51 Reply 82, posted (1 year 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 9802 times:
Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 80): I see LH as a happy 748 customer as any can be. LH will never cancel. There is not one disadvantage for LH with this deal
Lets wait until the -8i is build before being happy with them. The first 20 aircraft heavy (ref. 787/A380) won't make LH happy. LH cancelled launch orders (Do728) before. Being sole operator is a something every operator will try to avoid at (almost) any costs. Don't underestimate this.
My gut feeling is that at a certain point in time Lufthansa and Boeing senior mngt will sit round the table and review / negotiate various scenarios. Based on those evaluations a decision will be made, regardless of what has been written / said before. Nobody is in for high value / risk small scale multi billion experiments these days.
Brilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 1483 posts, RR: 0 Reply 84, posted (1 year 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 9525 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 29): Now addition delay compensation to LH and the VIP customers is likely.
What are you basing this on? Supposition and conjecture or do you have hard facts and concrete evidence to back up this claim?
Quoting Chiad (Reply 35): I think Keesje's postings are based on foresighted and well considered thoughts.
And his photos with pics and graphs are so refreshing.
Thanks.
He seems to love to jump on any bit of negative news Boeing has and turns mole hills into mountians. He hate for any thing not Airbus is quite evident in his previous posts on A-Net and I for one take what ever he states with a huge grain of salt.
[Edited 2008-11-17 06:50:45]
Having low expectations means you won't be disapointed.
Parapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 435 posts, RR: 0 Reply 85, posted (1 year 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 9482 times:
"He says that, as the airline eyes a replacement for five Boeing 747-400s, 17 747-400 combis and 10 MD-11s, it has effectively ruled out the passenger version of the 747-8."
How dare he (KLM) say that! ( see todays Flight global) indeed how dare BA,Quantas et al say exactly the same thing. I guess certain A netters must be writing letters of complaint as we speak (they are very vocal here!).
But I am tempted to agree that LH have by far the upper hand here.They can wait for Boeing to come to them (either way). Can you even get suppliers to tool up for just 20 (pax) planes? I would doubt it.
I note Astuteman's comments on the future increasing efficiency of the 388 and thats without XWB engines.With such gains in the pipeline one begins to wonder how even a -700 XWB engined version would compare to the 748i.
As Chris (above) states. LH Cargo? Its the obvious compromise ( along with a tempting -800 top up order).
Oil will go back to $100 in a couple of years. I do not see a future in old 744 conversions myself.The 748 cargo will on its own have a very healthy and long future IMHO.
CHRISBA777ER From Singapore, joined Mar 2001, 4926 posts, RR: 62 Reply 86, posted (1 year 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 9462 times:
Quoting Brilondon (Reply 84): Quoting Keesje (Reply 29):
Now addition delay compensation to LH and the VIP customers is likely.
What are you basing this on? Supposition and conhecture or do you have hard facts and concrete evidence to back up this claim?
In fairness to Keesje - he is on solid ground with this one. The project is delayed and it is widely held by everyone here that delays = compensation.
I think its fair to say that some form of compensation will be involved.
Quoting Brilondon (Reply 84): Quoting Chiad (Reply 35):
I think Keesje's postings are based on foresighted and well considered thoughts.
And his photos with pics and graphs are so refreshing.
Thanks.
He seems to love to jump on any bit of negative news Boring has and turns mole hills into mountians. He hate for any thing not Airbus is quite evident in his previous posts on A-Net and I for one take what ever he states with a huge grain of salt.
Again, in fairness to him, Keesje is much more knowledgeable and eloquent than most of the haters on here - be they Boeing cheerleaders or Airbus lovers.
I occasionally take umbrage slightly at his relentless agenda, but you cannot really fault him for knowledge or foresight.
Its easy to dismiss someone on credibility grounds when you don't like or don't want to accept what he is saying.
I like to think of myself as a little more centre than Keesje but as a professional marine/airline analyst, I rate him highly and can assure you that what he is saying and how he presents his arguments have considerable merit. You might not like what he says but he has a right to say it and he says it better than a great many idiots on here. He knows his stuff, trust me.
Personally I think the 748i will go ahead as planned and LH will not be the sole pax customer. I would think that at the fire sale prices Boeing can offer once the R&D costs and also the delay penalties have been fully sunk into the 748F revenue, that a number of airlines would be interested purely because the acquisition costs would be so much cheaper than the A388. I think this was the driver behind the Arik order, although I am really hoping they cancel it and centre on the 77W instead because it is far too much plane for them and they will have huge problems with it IMHO.
Stitch From United States, joined Jul 2005, 15918 posts, RR: 64 Reply 87, posted (1 year 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 9473 times:
Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 83): I wonder if LHCargo might be interested at a very cut price?
I expect the 747-8F is too much plane for LH. They replaced their 747-200Fs with the similar-performance MD-11F instead of up-gauging to the 747-400F.
As for KLM deciding against the 747-8I, that should not be surprising. Since it is not offered in a combi version and they are replacing their 747-400s with 777-300ERs, where would the 747-8I - or the A380-800, for that matter - fit into their plans?
Keesje From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 9843 posts, RR: 51 Reply 88, posted (1 year 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 9449 times:
Quoting Brilondon (Reply 84): Quoting Keesje (Reply 29):
Now addition delay compensation to LH and the VIP customers is likely.
What are you basing this on?
Well, if aircraft are late, contract terms are violated. This leads to renegotiations. Compensation is likely in these cases. LH is not a partner, it's a customer.
CHRISBA777ER From Singapore, joined Mar 2001, 4926 posts, RR: 62 Reply 89, posted (1 year 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 9449 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 87): Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 83):
I wonder if LHCargo might be interested at a very cut price?
I expect the 747-8F is too much plane for LH. They replaced their 747-200Fs with the similar-performance MD-11F instead of up-gauging to the 747-400F.
I am not convinced - the 748F will be the parcel freighter par excellence and LHC are a big player. The economics per tonne will be compelling enough to make them look seriously at them I am sure. My guess would be that if they could get a decent number quickly at a cheap acquisition cost and with performance guarantees in place, they would take them.
I read somewhere that the 748F will have somewhere between 5 - 12% better fuel burn per tonne than the 744F - that has to count for something. That would put it in the MD11's ballpark - and they have a load of those.
Brilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 1483 posts, RR: 0 Reply 90, posted (1 year 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 9453 times:
Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 86): Again, in fairness to him, Keesje is much more knowledgeable and eloquent than most of the haters on here - be they Boeing cheerleaders or Airbus lovers.
I definatly agree with you. I have tried repeatedly to add him to my resprcted user list as I find him very knowledgable, I just wanted him to cite where he got his information from.
As a personal note I don't respond to the boeing haters of which I don't respect, I do respect him and his points of view.
I also would like to add you to my repected users list but I have not been able to.
Having low expectations means you won't be disapointed.
Stitch From United States, joined Jul 2005, 15918 posts, RR: 64 Reply 91, posted (1 year 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 9052 times:
I know that LH may not be the most trustworthy of sources, but the evening news did note that one of their PR people earlier today expressly said the airline had no intention of canceling their 747-8I order. *shrug*
Columba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 5610 posts, RR: 5 Reply 92, posted (1 year 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 8864 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 79): On the 747-8i, maybe Leahy is sitting on his hands, watching from the side line.
..or working out some scenarios to "help out" Lufthansa. A340-600 discounts/ early slots, early A380 slots (ILFC?), financing a few 747-400 D-checks / upgrades, launch discounts on A350-1000, a few cheap A333s.. or a combination of those.
Lufthansa has said that they have no interest in the A350-1000 as it does not offer enough range for their needs.
There was an article you can find it on the web, but I am at work and don´t want to use googel.
LH said regarding the 787/A350:
787-3 no interest, too heavy too much wingspan for domestic gates
787-8 no interest since too small
787-9 have interest
787-10 have interest
A350-800 nothing said really but they said they would prefer larger variants of both the 787 and A350
A350-900 have interest
A350-1000 no interest so far not enough range
Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans - John Lennon
Danny From Ireland, joined Apr 2002, 3270 posts, RR: 6 Reply 93, posted (1 year 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 8780 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 88): Quoting Brilondon (Reply 84):
Quoting Keesje (Reply 29):
Now addition delay compensation to LH and the VIP customers is likely.
What are you basing this on?
Well, if aircraft are late, contract terms are violated. This leads to renegotiations. Compensation is likely in these cases. LH is not a partner, it's a customer.
Ikramerica From United States, joined May 2005, 18424 posts, RR: 60 Reply 95, posted (1 year 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 8546 times:
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 94): They would appear to know something about the 787-10 that we don't.
Well, different roles? The A350-1000 would be much larger, and maybe LH sees the 748, with greater range and more pax, as a better plane for long routes like that, while the 787-10 would be in a denser configuration for mid-range routes?
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Columba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 5610 posts, RR: 5 Reply 96, posted (1 year 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 8555 times:
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 94): They would appear to know something about the 787-10 that we don't.
Rgds
Sorry 787-10 is said not to have the right performance:
Here is the quote:
"Buchholz expressed confidence that the 747-8 will be successful. "We need a 400-seat aircraft in the future," he said, claiming that engine commonality with the 787 will secure the aircraft's place in the mainline fleet. "The A350-1000 or 787-10 will not have the performance we need," he said."
Stitch From United States, joined Jul 2005, 15918 posts, RR: 64 Reply 98, posted (1 year 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 8466 times:
Based on the last "spec" Boeing was shopping, the 787-10 is a valid competitor to both the A330-300 and A340-300. It offers more passenger space, significantly more hold volume, matches the A340-300 in range at MSP and eclipses the A330-300 by some 1000nm, and offer better fuel efficiency to both. I do not know if LH operates any A340-300Es, but Boeing needs less then a 10% MSP range boost to match that model, as well.
As such, LH could conceivably be interested in upwards of 50 as an A333 and A343 replacement if Boeing can address whatever issues LH feels need to be addressed (I can only guess they want more range so they can operate it under adverse wind or field conditions).
Stitch From United States, joined Jul 2005, 15918 posts, RR: 64 Reply 100, posted (1 year 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 8340 times:
Quoting Columba (Reply 99): Maybe the "weak" performance of the A350-1000 is one reason why we did not see many orders for it as a 747 replacement.
All we really know is what Tim Clark has said which is the numbers Airbus has been presenting him show it will carry 6t less payload then their current 77Ws on the same mission (what mission that is, he didn't say - I am guessing DXB-North America), won't fly any farther (which I am also guessing means it can't make LAX/SFO, either) and that it will burn something like 15% (or was it 20%?) less fuel.
Wiki says he bought the 20 he did to replace his 777-300 fleet, not his 777-300ER fleet. So it may be for the moment he is planning on using them for medium-range runs around Europe, Africa and India and keeping the 77Ws for the real long-haul missions and wait to see how much Airbus can improve the A350-1000 and Boeing the 777-300ER before he commits to a new fleet.
Of course, the 77W fleet itself is brand new, so even if the A350-1000 benchmarked across the board better then the 77W, EK may not feel a need to replace them next decade (though they might since those 77Ws would do well on the second-hand and lease markets).
Keesje From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 9843 posts, RR: 51 Reply 101, posted (12 months 23 hours ago) and read 7843 times:
It now appears the wing was adjusted, required engineering underestimated. Wing loads had to be changed leading to lots of follow up.
Driving demand for more engineering resources were persistent and self-perpetuating design changes caused by the new, super-efficient airfoil.
To meet Boeing's original performance targets for the 747-8, Boeing has had to move the centre of gravity on the airfoil from the aft section of the wing forward, but this has caused a variety of new problems.
"When we changed the wing airfoil and ultimately changed the centre of gravity, this fundamentally shifted how the whole aircraft balances loads", Michael Teal, the 747's chief engineer says. "As the loads shifted back on the wing the tail is the balancing load. So we changed more parts in the tail. But then the loads in the aftbody changed, so we have to change the aft body."
As the 787-8 kept commercial aircraft engineers busy longer than expected last year, Boeing assigned engineers from its military aircraft division to the 747-8F. The process of releasing engineering drawings for the 747-8I is only now getting started.
On the 747-8i, Boeing is definately before the bump (reply 29), meaning the back door is still open IMO.
Astuteman From United Kingdom (England), joined Jan 2005, 6192 posts, RR: 85 Reply 103, posted (12 months 18 hours ago) and read 7474 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 102): Be interesting to know if "original performance targets for the 747-8" means the passenger model is now projected for 8500nm range again.
Sounds to me likely that the spec performance is predicated on the supercritical foil, but that the effect the supercritical foil has on the centre of lift/gravity was underestimated or not understood.
Sounds like a lot of extra engineering, and I'm curious as to why this wasn't forseen....
On a side note, the 748i range/payload curves have disappeared from the Boeing website.
Again.
SCAT15F From United States, joined Feb 2007, 318 posts, RR: 0 Reply 104, posted (12 months 17 hours ago) and read 7367 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 102): Be interesting to know if "original performance targets for the 747-8" means the passenger model is now projected for 8500nm range again.
I seem to recall the number being 8300nm, but 8500nm would be great.
I hope "original" would also mean mach .86 "economical" cruise instead of mach .855
Frigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 402 posts, RR: 0 Reply 105, posted (12 months 17 hours ago) and read 7322 times:
Quoting Parapente (Reply 85): Can you even get suppliers to tool up for just 20 (pax) planes? I would doubt it.
Well, for a VIP model, some may even tool up for just one.... The only thing that matters whether it makes a profit for them or not. But with at least 20, I don't think that will cause a problem for suppliers.
Quoting Keesje (Reply 88): Well, if aircraft are late, contract terms are violated. This leads to renegotiations. Compensation is likely in these cases.
No doubt about it!
Quoting Stitch (Reply 98): Based on the last "spec" Boeing was shopping, the 787-10 is a valid competitor to both the A330-300 and A340-300.
But wouldn't the 787-10 need to match the 77E's payload/range performance as well? I believe the A350-900 will as well (sorry to drift a bit off-topic).
flown on: 146,318,319,320,321,AB6,332,343,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,742,74E,744,752,762,763,772,77E,773,77W,E90,F50,M11,M82
Travelhound From Australia, joined May 2008, 253 posts, RR: 0 Reply 106, posted (12 months 14 hours ago) and read 7154 times:
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 103): Sounds to me likely that the spec performance is predicated on the supercritical foil, but that the effect the supercritical foil has on the centre of lift/gravity was underestimated or not understood.
Sounds like a lot of extra engineering, and I'm curious as to why this wasn't forseen....
About 3-4 months a Boeing exec. (I think it was Scott Carson) made a comment that they made assumptions (the word used) about the 748 that didn't pan out. Maybe this is what he was referring to.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 102): Be interesting to know if "original performance targets for the 747-8" means the passenger model is now projected for 8500nm range again.
That would be my guess. My little spread sheet suggests a range around 8600NM
Tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 5639 posts, RR: 56 Reply 107, posted (12 months 9 hours ago) and read 7011 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 101): On the 747-8i, Boeing is definately before the bump (reply 29), meaning the back door is still open IMO.
Whether they're before or after the bump, unless we know how big the bump is (which we don't) we can't draw any conclusions from it.
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 103): Sounds to me likely that the spec performance is predicated on the supercritical foil, but that the effect the supercritical foil has on the centre of lift/gravity was underestimated or not understood.
Sounds like a lot of extra engineering, and I'm curious as to why this wasn't forseen....
It's not clear to me from the article that it wasn't foreseen...they just appear to be enumerating the changes that cascaded out from a CG change. What they didn't foresee what the lack of engineering resources due to the 787 running over, which nobody foresaw at the time.
Quote: Boeing today confirms that three widebodies - the 747, 767 and 777 - face new production disruptions caused by the same quality control issue already plaguing the 737 programme.
The article does not specify whether this will push remaining 744 deliveries back, and whether this will have any impact on the 748 timeline.
Stitch From United States, joined Jul 2005, 15918 posts, RR: 64 Reply 110, posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 6301 times:
Quoting Scipio (Reply 109): Presumably, if this implies delays in getting the last few 747-400s out, it also implies at least a potential for further delays in the 747-8?
Well delays in that the line isn't ready as soon as expected so they can't start production when they now plan to.
But while Boeing waits for that line to be built, they can continue to work on the plane as necessary so that lessens the chances of an additional delay in that area.
Astuteman From United Kingdom (England), joined Jan 2005, 6192 posts, RR: 85 Reply 111, posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 6167 times:
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 107): It's not clear to me from the article that it wasn't foreseen...they just appear to be enumerating the changes that cascaded out from a CG change.
If I look at this quote...
Quoting Keesje (Reply 101): Driving demand for more engineering resources were persistent and self-perpetuating design changes caused by the new, super-efficient airfoil.
It may well be just me, but the reference to both "more engineering resources" and "persistent and self-perpetuating design changes" seem to me to clearly indicate emerging work that was not anticipated in the programme.
Those are the sorts of words we use when "unforseen" work emerges. No matter, I guess. The programme is where it is.
Sponsor Message: 
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 9843 posts, 
From Hong Kong SAR, PRC, joined Dec 2006, 4744 posts, 
From United States, joined May 2004, 5589 posts, 
From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 6843 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Mar 2004, 3807 posts, 
Of course, airlines could cancel their orders - but for free? If the plane misses its performance guarantees by a mile, probably yes. But not because of late delivery.
). But 9 months is somewhat more than I expected. Let's hope Boeing have put some slack in their new schedule.
From Norway, joined May 2006, 404 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 1230 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 5639 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2008, 130 posts, 
From Korea, joined Jun 2005, 646 posts, 
From Greece, joined Dec 2007, 229 posts, 
From Australia, joined May 2008, 253 posts, 
.gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (Northern Ireland), joined Feb 2005, 3016 posts, 
.gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (England), joined Jan 2005, 6192 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 797 posts, 
From Singapore, joined Mar 2001, 4926 posts, 
From Belgium, joined Oct 2007, 430 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
