747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2 Posted (5 years 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 12274 times:
There are people who think it is a sad thing to see 77W replacing 744 instead of 748 replacing 744, and I have to admit I am one of them. I do understand that it a good ideal to replace a 744 with 77W. But how has this effected the traveler that take a lot of overseas flights? The extra mach 0.01 cruising speed that the 747 provides is a comfort, there are also people out there who may pick a 747 flight just to ride on the queen of the skies. Do not get me wrong, the 777 is a great plane, and very large inside ( I was even blown away at the size of the cabin on my first 777 200 flight) but can it do as good of job as the 747 did?
PS: I believe the 777 is one off the best airliners ever built, but who can beat the Queen of the skies.
Lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11966 posts, RR: 100 Reply 1, posted (5 years 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 12202 times:
Costs: Down (about 20%)
Speed: Trivial. Mach 0.1 provides a 120 minute buffer on a long flight... so Mach 0.01 is 10 to 15 minutes.
Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter): there are also people out there who may pick a 747 flight just to ride on the queen of the skies.
See that with the A380. They want to claim they're riding on the best and to many that's the biggest.
For today, the 777 is the profit machine. However... on the routes it can fly, the A333 is giving it quite the run for the money (similar CASM). All indicators are that the A388 is setting record low CASM levels. So on the routes that can fill a few more seats... its the choice.
Don't get me wrong. The 744 is a great design... for 1985. The 747 is an amazing basic design... for 1969. Technology and demands have moved on.
I see more of a trend to ride on the aircraft with the latest seats (in particular, J class).
I agree with the revenue neutral but the cost is a lot more fuzzy. In a cheap fuel environment the 744 has much of its fuel burden lifted.
The other thing is, the 77W is a very expensive airplane to buy. So the two types would be about neck-and-neck regarding profitability. Sure, the 77W is a better more modern airliner... but it costs big money!
FlyDreamliner From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2759 posts, RR: 15 Reply 9, posted (5 years 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 11987 times:
77W is slightly lower in pax capacity, though many configurations seem to manage fairly low revenue losses (either through high density Y or large J sections) and in terms of cargo, the 77W blows the 744 away.
77W is markedly lower maintenance, lower and fuel consumption, and more versatile, able to perform longer routes than 744 with higher loads.
Ultimately, the more modern 777 platform, pushed towards its apex in the 77W simply provides top-notch performance in the segment. There is a reason 77W sales are so hot and so many 744 are being replaced by them.
In volatile times, airline would sooner buy an aircraft that can be used on the highest number of routes - and buy aircraft aiming to the smaller side of a market - to push up yield, than overkill with too much capacity.
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
For carriers sans combi or freighter ops, passengers revenues tend to repreent 90-95% of earnings.
There is not very much difference in cargo capability of the 744 vs 77W particularly at the long stage lenghts that would makes the 77W a silver bullet in this area.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
To be fair, some airlines use the 77W as a direct 744 replacement (Air France, KLM, etc), others however see it as more of a 772 replacement, of sorts.
For SQ - the 77W probably doesn't forgo much revenue to 744 because its J and C products fetch higher yields and it takes with more cargo. Basically, they installed a J class that consumed more space, but which increased yields, and gave up Y seats to do it.
Ditto NH, an airline desperately trying to increase yields and improve its margins in the very competitive Japan market. They focused on increasing yields with 77W rather than capacity.
It's all what direction they want to take with it.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 14): Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 9):
and in terms of cargo, the 77W blows the 744 away.
Payload wise, the 744 and 77W carry essentially the same mass, the 77W just has more volume.
In terms of payload / range, the 77W does deftly beat out the 744, however. On shorter routes, however, you are correct.
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
You are comparing the 77W with the "old" 3 class version of the 744, and this is fair (but be aware this 3 class version of the 744 does not exist anymore on AF, all have been modified to a 2 class version).
But the real configuration of AF 77W is now 250 seats in Y: 10 abreast rows have been installed in the Eco cabin (3-4-3) (without changing the pitch) and travelling in these planes has become a real nigthmare. .
Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 16): To be fair, some airlines use the 77W as a direct 744 replacement (Air France, KLM, etc), others however see it as more of a 772 replacement, of sorts.
You are right, and KLM also has a 3-4-3 config.
Avoid 777 with 3-4-3 config in Y ! They are real sardine cans. (AF/KL for example)
Jfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 7856 posts, RR: 8 Reply 18, posted (5 years 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 11466 times:
77W replacing 744's is the same theory as when 767 started flying teh Atlantic, keep the front give up the back. Having to sell more coach tickets just kills yield and as a BA executive was quoted recently "we pay the last 50 passengers to fly with us" on a 744.
Zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8280 posts, RR: 74 Reply 19, posted (5 years 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 10738 times:
Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 16): For SQ - the 77W probably doesn't forgo much revenue to 744 because its J and C products fetch higher yields and it takes with more cargo. Basically, they installed a J class that consumed more space, but which increased yields, and gave up Y seats to do it.
Let do some simplistic sums then...say a return trip SIN-SYD-SIN (numbers taken form the SQ website dep Feb 1, return Feb 28 for all classes)
Y - SGD$1,299
J - SGD$5,906
F - SGD$7,936
77W 8/42/228 @ 80% LF load factor (222 pax) you would have a pax revenue of around SGD$485,000, and that would leave you with about 39,000 kg of available cargo payload.
@ 50% LF load factor (19,000 kg) you would have a cargo revenue of around SGD$95,000 ($5/kg).
744 12/50/313 @ 80% LF load factor (300 pax) you would have a pax revenue of around SGD$640,000, and that would leave you with about 30,000 kg of available cargo payload.
@ 50% LF load factor (15,000 kg) you would have a cargo revenue of around SGD$75,000 ($5/kg).
Total 77W revenue around - SGD$580,000
Total 744 revenue around - SGD$715,000
(the 380 would be over SGD$800,000)
The 744 is earning 20-30% more revenue over the 77W, and cargo prices and volumes are dropping.
Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 16): In terms of payload / range, the 77W does deftly beat out the 744, however. On shorter routes, however, you are correct.
Not in the real world...........industry averages for load factors would be around 70-80% for passengers, and around 50% for cargo.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 28641 posts, RR: 84 Reply 20, posted (5 years 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 10487 times:
How is SQ using their 77Ws? I've flown them BCN-MXP-SIN, but that's about it for the moment.
Are they replacing previous 747 services or opening new ones? I expect SIN-CDG/FRA/SFO used to be 747-400 service, but SYD was 773, was it not?
Like with NH and JL, SQ's 77Ws are seeing the smallest reductions in First and Business Class cabin seating and the largest in Economy Class. Now while the latest reports have Asian O&D traffic dropping for 2008, SQ committed to the 77W in late 2004 so they must have been looking at longer term trends, which some pundits tell us were showing explosive growth in this market, which would tend to move SQ towards larger planes (additional A380-800s and perhaps even the 747-8I) with larger Economy Class cabins (the A388 carries 86 more Economy Class passengers then the 744).
If cargo prices and volumes are dropping, then the ~50% extra belly cargo volume the 77W offers over the 747-400 and A380-800 (see note below) would seem superfluous. If values were dropping, but not volumes, then I could see where the extra volume could possibly make up the shortfall (carry more goods at a lower price per good).
Then again, maybe it's just a sign that no airline - even SQ - is infallible and their fleet people frelled-up when they ordered the 77W instead of waiting for the 747-Advanced to become the 747-8I like LH did. *shrug*
Note - I am well aware that the A388's hold volume is larger then the 744's. However, the A388 has to dedicate additional LD3 positions in said holds to carrying the additional passenger bags so they tend to cancel each other out (the A388 having a few extra LD3 positions for revenue, in the end).
CX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4439 posts, RR: 5 Reply 21, posted (5 years 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 10268 times:
Over the past several months to a year, I have thought that the 77W was the new money maker for airlines and that the 744 was a thing of the past. Zeke's numbers tell a different story though. If those numbers are realistic operating profits, then one has to wonder if the 747-8 stands a better chance in future fleets? Could it be that after operating with LH for a while the 747-8 garners more orders for carriers looking for something inbetween the A380 and 77W?
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
Par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6524 posts, RR: 8 Reply 22, posted (5 years 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 9895 times:
Quoting CX747 (Reply 21): Over the past several months to a year, I have thought that the 77W was the new money maker for airlines and that the 744 was a thing of the past. Zeke's numbers tell a different story though. If those numbers are realistic operating profits, then one has to wonder if the 747-8 stands a better chance in future fleets? Could it be that after operating with LH for a while the 747-8 garners more orders for carriers looking for something inbetween the A380 and 77W?
Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 5): You can easily see one place that the 773ER has replaced the 744: the Everett assembly line.
From 2004 to Nov. 2008 deliveries were:
744: 5 (nearly all in 2004)
Looking at all 747's and 777's for this time period:
Two set of numbers one could say that they are the opposite of each other. B744 sales have fallen off, B77W sales have risen, A380 is now available and while it is selling, its demand does not equal the demand for the B77W, note also that the A340-XX versions have also been available during this time frame.
Now Airbus is making the A350XWB a version of which will come close to the B77W, if the demand is still there for 747 size a/c, why not meet it, why must each OEM either go way larger - A380 - or much lower - B77W / A350XWB?
B777LRF From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1155 posts, RR: 3 Reply 24, posted (5 years 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 9789 times:
Well, one effect is that certain passengers (like, well, myself) will not fly an airline across the Pacific if it only offers a 2-engine option. Call me old fashioned, a relic of the past if you will, but I just feel better knowing there are 4 donks doing their thing.
So there you are; loss of revenue for the airline offering only a 2-engined option. A miniscule loss of revenue, no doubt about it, and not something any airline would care much about. There are, however, still airlines out there who are not comfortable crossing the pacific on anything less than 4 engines. It took Lufthansa a very long time to get comfortable crossing the pacific on 2, but they eventually get there. And even to this day, if I'm crossing the atlantic with Lufty, I'll book either an A340 or B747 before an A330.
Last but not least, one does not like the 777-300. It just looks wrong. Don't like to passenger on 777's at all in fact - not nearly as comfy as an Airbus offering or the venerable 747.
From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
25 DfwRevolution: Like who? The last one of significance was CX and even they have ordered the 773ER. A number of airlines have also said they prefer twins for long-di
26 The Coachman: SQ 77W's do a couple of intra-Asia runs to HKG and so on. But they do things like SIN-SYD (5x weekly), BOM, DEL, FRA, ZRH, CDG, SIN-HKG-SFO (started
27 B777LRF: dfw I'm not talking dispatch reliability. I'm talking the "what if" scenarios, and fact remains that when a 2-legged camel throws a shoe, you have an
28 Flighty: But still... double engine failure has not caused barely any crashes in the last 30 years, don't you... out of millions and millions of flights... I
29 Lightsaber: The 747 is *the* most expensive plane to perform a "D check upon." There 777 is famous for its reduced maintenance costs. Its not free to keep a plan
30 DfwRevolution: IIRC, the 777 doesn't officially need D-checks, does it? Instead they use something along the lines of a "Heavy C-check." No, you're talking about su
31 Flighty: At $140/bbl fuel, and with cheap credit available, no doubt the 77W is more profitable. This will lead to a glut of 744s sitting around. In time, the
32 LAXintl: There is a new'ish maintenance and certification concept out in the industry called MSG-3 (Maintenance Steering Group) that covers several types of a
33 DLPMMM: You are olf fashioned and a relic of the past! It is also nice to see a discussion of airplane and airline economics without the A verses B or this a
34 Amciver: I agree, its noisy, bumpy and cramped in Y on most 777s I've flown - I hope a combination of 748i / A380 will eventually replace the 744 with most ca
35 Lightsaber: First, I'm not that negative on the 744. It has a *very* profitable life ahead of it as a freighter. Ironically, new side cargo doors have been engin
36 FlyDreamliner: Well, in fact, the 777 offers the widest average Y seat of any aircraft in service - in 9 abreast, nothing is roomier side-to-side. An quantitatively
37 TGV: If they can ! I hope Y+ on board AF will be in range of prices such that we will be able to convince our company to pay for it, in any case J is out
38 AirNZ: Typical BA attitude/remark.......and to which one must ask why then are they using 744's, as it certainly would seem their fleet planning must leave
39 Zeke: I doubt that, in particular for the civil 744. I chose that route as SQ operate the 77W/744/A380 over the same route on the same days, the Y class fa
40 Jfk777: The 744 are cheap to operate at current low fuel prices because they are depreciated. When economies recover, 77W will look awesome. When many 744's
41 FlyDreamliner: It does make sense - I can think of no machine which has more parts than a 744. If a 744 is not the most expensive civil aircraft to do a D check on,
42 Lightsaber: That's the issue. If someone (or their company) is not willing to upgrade to Y+ or J... they're going for the internet fares. Very interesting and lo
43 Flyglobal: Extra cruising speed is not effective in real life. Plane schedules are done based on slots and circuit plans and have some buffer. The caiptain will
44 Astuteman: The Boeing website says the original 773 was designed to replace early 747 classics, boasting 30% lower costs, including 40% less maintenance. Of cou
45 Stitch: It got pretty close, based on Boeing's Airplane Characteristics documents: 747-200 Maximum Payload: 68t (JTD9-7R4G2) 747-300 Maximum Payload: 69t (RB
46 Viscount724: But many 777s are now 10-abreast, for example all EK 777s (all models), and AF and KL 777-300ERs.Those certainly don't win any awards for seating spa
47 Astuteman: To be fair, I agree Although when I interrogated the 747 classic ACAP some time back, I seem to recall getting about 4 200Nm for max payload range fo
48 Mgmacius: Not from my perspective - for me 747 looks old. Really, really old - I still love that plane, but it's just from other era, like a living fossil. T7
49 Stitch: They are a pain. They start at Maximum Payload on the far left, but then change to "Maximum Landing Weight" and start trending down in a gentle slope
50 OldAeroGuy: The reason is that the Max Landing Weight is not high enough compared to the MZFW. Typical Reserve Fuel for long flights is a function of total fligh