Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
"if" The 747-8i Catches Us By Surprise...  
User currently offlineVC10er From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 2973 posts, RR: 13
Posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 18304 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

If the 747-8i performs as well, if not better, than stated ( Boeing could be planning a calculated market disruptor who an airplane many yawn at) what do you think "could" happen? Airlines reversing their "no's"? Airlines canceling Airbus options etc. Many 747 replacements?
It's what I would do if I had the job to market her. The only way airlines to say WOW again is if the new "8" exceeds all expectations after a bunch for LH are flying around, perfectly sized, better than expected fuel costs (saving a lot more than planned) and noise reduction. And if she looks as good inside as an A380 or 787 she may not look so PanAm 1970!


The world is missing love, let's use our flights to spread it!
41 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2754 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 18167 times:

I believe it have to be on par with CASM on the A380 for us to see many replacement. But who knows. And better CASM than the 777-300ER currently enjoys. If economy and low price tickets will be the way forwars the business case for larger airplanes will increas. This in turns will better the business car for both the 747 and the A380.


Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 18145 times:

no doubt the cabine will look good. The engines likely will eventually hit their sfc targets. In terms of noise I foresee no surprises. Maybe if an airline specifies 9 abreast main cabine, 34 inch pitch, great catering, lots of crew and entertainment passengers will love it.

User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5155 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 17863 times:

Quoting keesje (Reply 2):
Maybe if an airline specifies 9 abreast main cabine, 34 inch pitch, great catering, lots of crew and entertainment passengers will love it.

Seems to me you are describing a number of Asian airlines. One of it's problems is that at 400-seats it is going to have 2 less pallet positions than the 77W. The 320-330-seat 77W operators who are looking for the extra 70 to 80 seats are going to have to give up about 6.25t of freight. Guess you can't have your cake and eat it at the same time. As has been said many times it has much to do with operators load patterns.


User currently offlineAither From South Korea, joined Oct 2004, 859 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 17712 times:

I would say that first they would change their demand forecast of large aircraft quite significantly  

Second, even if, and with a big "if", the airplane is beating expectations, it would be hard to make the airline believe this is true, in particular during a period when Boeing has lost quite a lot of credibility.



Never trust the obvious
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5155 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 17611 times:

Quoting Aither (Reply 4):
Second, even if, and with a big "if", the airplane is beating expectations, it would be hard to make the airline believe this is true, in particular during a period when Boeing has lost quite a lot of credibility.

Not so. The manufacturer's have performance guarantees where they put their money where their mouth is. If they over promise they will most certainly pay.


User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13170 posts, RR: 15
Reply 6, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 17542 times:

There are very few place that a 4 engined a/c is needed today to avoid operational difficulties. The best chances for success for the pax 747-8i will be routes that fly over certain areas of the Middle East, Russia, China, South Pacific and the Poles where options in case of an emergency, due to political and/or limited facilies, a 4 engined a/c can mean the necessary range to reach a 'safe' and suitable airport. That is especially critical when you have pax vs. freight on a flight.

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31261 posts, RR: 85
Reply 7, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 17250 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 3):
One of it's problems is that at 400-seats it is going to have 2 less pallet positions than the 77W. The 320-330-seat 77W operators who are looking for the extra 70 to 80 seats are going to have to give up about 6.25t of freight.

On the flip side, a 400-seat 747-8 should/would offer more available pallet positions after bags than a 500-seat A380-800.



That being said, I don't see any current A380 customer canceling in favor of the 747-8, though some might add the 747-8 to complement the A380 (as LH and KE have done). In terms of new customers, I'd be guessing existing 747-400 operators like NH, UA and DL would choose the 747-8 over the A380-800 if they want a VLA. And there is that MoU floating out there from W3 that has yet to be turned into a firm order (if it ever is), so we might see some other carriers currently not operating the 747 family selecting the 747-8 instead of the A380-800, depending on their network, load factors and traffic projections.


User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 17183 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 3):
One of it's problems is that at 400-seats it is going to have 2 less pallet positions than the 77W.

With a 120k lbs payload a -8 i goes 7400NM and a 777W goes 6500NM and the 747 has more room or for a 6000NM flight the 777W lifts 30k lbs less payload then a -8i. From hot departure / ETOPS flights the difference grows.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/startup/pdf/777_payload.pdf
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/7478brochure.pdf

The 777-300ER is a great aircraft for Pacific flights, but lets not exaggerate. It doesn't have VLA capabilities.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 9, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 16853 times:

Quoting VC10er (Thread starter):
If the 747-8i performs as well, if not better, than stated

...like the 77W?

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 6):
There are very few place that a 4 engined a/c is needed today to avoid operational difficulties.

  

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
In terms of new customers, I'd be guessing existing 747-400 operators like NH, UA and DL would choose the 747-8 over the A380-800 if they want a VLA.

Perhaps, but I doubt that they would need a VLA of any sort. Maybe ANA if they want to pick up slack from the newly reduced JAL.

Quoting keesje (Reply 8):
It doesn't have VLA capabilities.

Apparently it doesn't need them.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5155 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 16228 times:

Quoting keesje (Reply 8):
The 777-300ER is a great aircraft for Pacific flights, but lets not exaggerate. It doesn't have VLA capabilities.

Right now there is no true VLA aircraft. The A380 in it's present iteration of 292 to 300t DOW and 366t MZFW would appear to be maxed out at about 7100nm ESAD LAX-MEL . The post 2012 iteration holds promise of stretching the envelope but really it doesn't need too much in my view. The number of economic 7400nm ESAD city pairs are few compared to the plethoria of 5500 to 6500nm ESAD pairs.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
On the flip side, a 400-seat 747-8 should/would offer more available pallet positions after bags than a 500-seat A380-800.

I don't think so Stitch. Checking the cargo hold details for both types I believe at the passenger loads quoted it is about a draw at 6-pallet positions. The A380 might have an advantage of 2-LD3 positions. I am using the standard of 1.3 bags/passenger and 37bags per LD-3.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25871 posts, RR: 22
Reply 11, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 15569 times:

Quoting keesje (Reply 2):
Maybe if an airline specifies 9 abreast main cabine, 34 inch pitch, great catering, lots of crew and entertainment passengers will love it.

Even 10-abreast on a 747 is much more bearable than on a 777.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31261 posts, RR: 85
Reply 12, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 14082 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 10):
I don't think so Stitch. Checking the cargo hold details for both types I believe at the passenger loads quoted it is about a draw at 6-pallet positions.

Both planes can fit seven pallets up front, but in theory the A380-800 would come up 2 LD3 positions short in the aft hold (it would need 18, but only has 16) to carry 500 passengers worth of bags using your numbers (650/37 = 17.6 LD3s) while the 747-8 would have 2 extra positions available for revenue cargo (needing 14 positions and having 16 available).


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20247 posts, RR: 59
Reply 13, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 13429 times:

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 6):
There are very few place that a 4 engined a/c is needed today to avoid operational difficulties. The best chances for success for the pax 747-8i will be routes that fly over certain areas of the Middle East, Russia, China, South Pacific and the Poles where options in case of an emergency, due to political and/or limited facilies, a 4 engined a/c can mean the necessary range to reach a 'safe' and suitable airport. That is especially critical when you have pax vs. freight on a flight.

If you look at the map of what falls within 180 minute ETOPS, the only areas where this is relevant is on southern hemisphere long-haul routes. The only non-ETOPS in the north hemisphere is way off Mexico and doesn't interfere with any existing flightpaths (unless someone is operating SYD-MEX). So you would think that some of the Southern Hemisphere airlines like QF, NZ, AR, and LA would be interested in it. But they aren't. They have A340's and 747's and A380's but nobody is ordering 748i's. Why not? Dunno. But the thing is that ETOPS is going bye-bye and going to be replaced with EROPS, IIRC. And then it won't matter how many engines you have anymore.

As for the northern airlines, this is a non-issue. Yes, it is a pain when you have an IFSD and have to emergency land an aircraft in a politically inconvenient country. But IFSD is such a rare occurrence that it can't really be a significant figure in a cost analysis. The only place you really don't want to take a twin is over Antarctica. Uninhabited, hostile terrain. No airports. High mountains. Enormous continent. Cold as a witch's teat. An airline gets a lot of egg on its face when a plane goes down there. You want four engines.

I think that the 748i is mostly going to sell as VIP aircraft.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 10):
ESAD

Sorry, but what is ESAD?


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10189 posts, RR: 97
Reply 14, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 11615 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 13):
Sorry, but what is ESAD?

Equivalent Still Air Distance. It means the distance actually flown through air, as opposed to the ground covered.
The makers nominal ranges are an example of it.

Rgds


User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4405 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 11453 times:

Boeing is not consist with itself. They market the 77W as the most efficient of all long range planes, and play the twin trumpet every day. So nobody believes into their commitment into the 748.

I see most airlines that are candidates in the waiting position. 748i will be available on rather short time frames, so the airlines wait for LH to find out how good it is. The day LH convers its 20 options into orders - if - will be the day the airlines put it onto their radar again. Nevertheless, I do not expect the 748i to reach A346 sales .


User currently offlineSSTsomeday From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 1276 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 11226 times:

Frankly I don't know what the future has in store for the 747-81.

On the one hand it perhaps would have a larger "niche" than the 380, due to 100 less seats to fill, making it a more flexibly machine, operationally.

On the other hand, Airlines have clearly reaffirmed their commitment to their large twins, in much larger numbers than the 747 or 380. It's been quite a while since 747s were flying every which-way, as the large twins are now doing. Really the market for the 380 as "niche" (niche at the moment anyway, though I don't think that EK's plans for it can be considered "niche.) was predicted before it launched. This was based mostly, I would imagine, on the 747 decline before and during 380 development. But the 747 deployment niche MAY actually be quite small - stuck between the 380 on the high end, and the large twins right below it.

The one thing that could impress buyers is fantastic operating statistics once it comes into service, (lower costs, improved operating envelope) We'll have to wait and see.

Meanwhile - I wonder whether the 747-8 is a burden to the 747-F program, or if together they add to an overall economy of scale and make that line more profitable? In other words, is the 8i economical to produce because the freighter line already exists? I always wondered that about the 340/330 sharing a production line, as well. Did the 340's disappointing sales and additional/different construction components put upward pressure on the costs of that line, or did it increase overall income to the program with increasing substantially the costs?

So now I wonder that about the -8i. Is it a help of a hindrance to the entire program?

Seeing as airlines seem to have had their buying sprees for the time being, and the ones who are lagging behind are the Americans, and we are going to buy twins. And with great airplanes like the 777 and 350 becoming available - just where are all these 7478i orders supposed to come from?

This from a person for whom the 747 is my all time favorite (although I wish they had stretched the passenger version as much as the freighter...)



I come in peace
User currently offlinecygnuschicago From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 758 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 11170 times:

Quoting VC10er (Thread starter):
It's what I would do if I had the job to market her.

Hence, you don't have the job to market her.

While marketing folks may like to talk about "under-promise and over-deliver", aircraft commitments are made years in advance. Boeing is not going to intentionally understate the 748i's ability just to "stun" the market 7 years later. By then, airlines have already made their medium-term decisions.

Of course, that doesn't mean that the aircraft won't over-deliver. Technology advances, and this gets incorporated into later frames. Take a look at the A380 - later frames have better performance and "over-deliver" against the commitments under which they were purchased. So will the 787, the A350 and the 748i.



If you cannot do the math, your opinion means squat!
User currently offlinerangercarp From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 144 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 9235 times:

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 16):
I wish they had stretched the passenger version as much as the freighter...

Um, they did.



iwgbtp!
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 19, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 7813 times:

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 15):
Boeing is not consist with itself. They market the 77W as the most efficient of all long range planes, and play the twin trumpet every day. So nobody believes into their commitment into the 748.

Twins are more efficient...but if you want to carry more than a 77W, you don't really have a choice but to go to more engines. Which means, today, you're choosing between the 747-8 and the A380. Boeing is already completely committed to the 747-8 in general as the sole large newbuild freighter out there, so the -8I doesn't have to do as much to pay for itself.

Tom.


User currently offlineVC10er From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 2973 posts, RR: 13
Reply 20, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 6881 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting cygnuschicago (Reply 17):

cute! You know I was speaking in jest.



The world is missing love, let's use our flights to spread it!
User currently offlineSSTsomeday From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 1276 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 6392 times:

Quoting rangercarp (Reply 18):
Um, they did.

Thank you for correcting me. I did some follow up research to discover that although they initially planed less of a stretch for the passenger version, now both A/C indeed have 18 ft 3 1/2 in stretch.



I come in peace
User currently offlineHirnie From Germany, joined May 2004, 595 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 6284 times:

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 21):
now both A/C indeed have 18 ft 3 1/2 in stretch.

LH insisted on the strech. They didn't need the range which the shorter strech would have offered and it would have been to close to the A346 capacity wise. EK wanted the "shorter" version with more range but Boeing went with LH.


User currently onlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12173 posts, RR: 51
Reply 23, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 6284 times:

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 15):
I do not expect the 748i to reach A346 sales .

According to Airbus, they have sold and delivered 97 A-340-600, and they claim 96 are still in "operation". But I thought there were at least 2 A-346 write-offs due to hull losses? The one driven into the blast fence during a full power 4 engine test, and a loss in South America.

This page is dated Sept. 2010.

http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfamilies/a330a340/a340-600

Boeing currently has 33 B-747-8Is on order.

http://active.boeing.com/commercial/...ageid=m25062&RequestTimeout=100000

Boeing also has 76 B-747-8Fs on order.

http://active.boeing.com/commercial/...ageid=m25062&RequestTimeout=100000

Both Boeing B-747-8 order pages are dated August 2010.

So, the total current order book for the B-747-8 is 109 airframes. That already exceeds the total order book for the A-340-600 by 12 airplanes.


User currently offlinestarrion From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1128 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 6137 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 23):


Boeing currently has 33 B-747-8Is on order.

http://active.boeing.com/commercial/...ageid=m25062&RequestTimeout=100000

Boeing also has 76 B-747-8Fs on order.

http://active.boeing.com/commercial/...ageid=m25062&RequestTimeout=100000

Both Boeing B-747-8 order pages are dated August 2010.

So, the total current order book for the B-747-8 is 109 airframes. That already exceeds the total order book for the A-340-600 by 12 airplanes.

I believe he was referring specifically to the 748i (pax only).

Frankly if the 748i sells 100 copies, as well as the several hundred freighters (given Boeing's near monopoly on heavy freight), I think there would be celebration in Boeing land. Boeing doesn't expect VLA's to make up a big part of the future market. In the ten years since launch Airbus has sold 200 A380's (half to one customer), and Boeing has sold 100 combined pax and freighters. 30% of the VLA market for the tiny investment (relative to Airbus) makes this look like a huge win for Boeing.



Knowledge Replaces Fear
25 SSTsomeday : Also AF 358 in Toronto...
26 BMI727 : It's certainly better than if the -8i were alone. The freighter will be paying the bills, and while I don't think that the intercontinental is in the
27 EA772LR : That was an A343, not an A346. AF never operated the A346. I don't think the 748 program has cost Boeing/GE significantly more than the A340-500/600
28 SchorschNG : You're right, but the A340-600 of Qatar was technically never delivered, so no "official" write-off. Boeing puts the sales expectations of the B747-8
29 EA772LR : But, the value of converting the 748I into a 747-8BCF certainly helps, and the BCF is certainly going to be an option for 748Fs just as it's been for
30 Post contains images EPA001 : I think that the size of how much better then expected the B77W turned out to be will not happen anymore. Boeing and GE themselves were surprised by
31 Stitch : Well Boeing have refused orders based on the price offered, so we know there is a floor they won't go below. And average transaction price for a "pop
32 BMI727 : I'm not sayiing I think that will happen, but rather that the 77W is good enough to make the 747 unattractive.
33 SSTsomeday : Oops - I didn't notice we were making that distinction. Thanks.
34 astuteman : In every way that it is possible to win a 3 mile long race after 4 furlongs........ Rgds
35 SchorschNG : Airbus doesn't earn money on the A380, due to bad pricing and high production cost. Boeing will have similar problem. Honestly, the whole VLA market
36 Post contains images keesje : So you add up the 8F cargo aircraft with the 8i passenger aircraft to compare them with the passenger A340-600, but ignore the almost similar passeng
37 milesrich : The 747-8i may end up to be for Boeing what the 737-200 was 40 years ago. The 737 had a late start and was way behind the DC-9 in sales for years. Whi
38 Stitch : If Airbus is losing money on the planes now, those aircraft will be generating plenty of ancillary sales over the decades and the profit margins on e
39 BMI727 : I think that might be why airlines aren't necessarily rushing out to buy the A380 and resisting the urge to keep up with the Joneses. They learned th
40 SchorschNG : I think the real time for the B737 started when the CFM56 was added. Never checked the numbers though. Yes, probably. But companies aim more and more
41 BMI727 : No, it was when the -200 showed up that the 737 became big time. The program was on its last legs (LH was the only major operator) but then UA said t
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
The 747-8I Prototype posted Thu Dec 20 2007 06:08:19 by Columba
Short Question : Will The 747-8I Ever Be Built? posted Sun Nov 11 2007 06:13:48 by Beaucaire
Heavyweight Bout For BA. The A380 Or The 747-8i posted Mon Jun 11 2007 20:45:22 by WINGS
Qantas & The 747-8i posted Wed Jan 31 2007 06:42:53 by Trentin
Pictures: First Look Inside The 747-8I posted Thu Jan 18 2007 19:11:23 by Leelaw
25 Potential Customers For The 747-8I posted Mon Jul 17 2006 19:33:31 by FCKC
If The US Legacies Merged Into One Mega Airline... posted Fri Dec 19 2008 16:56:20 by FRAspotter
747-8i Is Farnborough The Last Roll Of The Dice? posted Sun May 11 2008 06:38:18 by BestWestern
What If The 737 & 747 Weren't Grandfathered? posted Tue Oct 2 2007 18:35:29 by Luv2cattlecall
Did Boeing Fix A Date For The First 747-8i? posted Wed Apr 25 2007 16:11:27 by CARST