Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Are Airlines Being "Narrow Minded" In Terms Of The 747-8I?  
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3614 posts, RR: 2
Posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 19812 times:

I notice that a lot of airlines are not ordering 747-8I and I think it is because they believe that it is a 42 years old design.
Now the 747-8I is more advance than a 77W, yet airlines keep replacing their 744s with 77Ws. I know a 77W burns a lot less fuel, but a 747-8I can carry a better pay load, with with a better cruising and top speed than a 77W, and let's not forget that a 747 come off a military design. So is it me, are do you think airlines have a narrow mind with the 747-8I?



UA, DL take notice!

Thank you LH and KAL, for haveing a open mind with the 747-8I.  

112 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinecobra27 From Slovenia, joined May 2001, 1012 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 19788 times:

Yes 773W seems to perform better than expected, it was meant to be 747 classic replacement but is also good 744 replacement. Does 777 also burn less fuel per pax, or only because it is smalller? Because it sure doesn't make sense to design 748I, 777W has quite good payload when not at max range. I think 747 could be optimised more (it seems to me that they just want to steal some A380 orders, also A380-800 was designed for bigger fuselage than -800) , 748F seems do quite well.

User currently offlineB727LVR From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 630 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 19774 times:

I agree with you... I think the 747 from the 100 to the -8 are all beautiful aircraft.


I'm like a kid in a candy store when it comes to planes!
User currently offlineMauriceB From Netherlands, joined Aug 2004, 2490 posts, RR: 25
Reply 3, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 19731 times:

Cruising speed isn't that important anymore, and thus, its a very narrow market it serves as airlines prefer to have (well except LH and KAL):

A: The plane which can take the most pax in one time: A380
B: A plane which can have a good amount of pax, is cheap to operate, and has commonality with other fleet members (see: 777W 777E etc, which all have the same type rating)

The 747-8i just doesn't make sense for a lot of airlines, as the gap between both A380 and 777, which are, and it hurts to say, better for todays economics, is very very small, and so airlines prefer a combination of both or one of those in combination with the bigger 787/A350 models


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30977 posts, RR: 86
Reply 4, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 19627 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
So is it me, are do you think airlines have a narrow mind with the 747-8I?

I don't believe it is so much a "narrow mind" as it is a "narrow band" where the 747-8 can make economic sense for a carrier.

The 777-300ER and A380-800 perform so well in their roles, that the 747-8 is squeezed between them. It offers 10% more payload weight (but 20% less hold volume) and 10% more range than the 777-300ER, but it also comes up 5% short on range and 15% on payload weight to the A380-800.


User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3614 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 19521 times:

Please forgive the grammar mistake on the topic heading, I just caught it, as I was checking for replies.

User currently offlineVC10er From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 2896 posts, RR: 10
Reply 6, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 19221 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Boeing obviously thinks that the number 747 and it's unique shape is a barrier to seeing it's mission specs as their Boeing.com video on the 787-8i "an all new airplane with a familiar shape" says. It's so transparent that they are tring to overcome a 40 year old shape NOT be an issue.
Everyone says airlines only care about money and which ac is right for them to make money. But HUMANS buy airplanes and there is ample proof that fleet planners and CEO & CFO's are swayed by emotions too.

If LH and Korean prove out the 747-8i as great performance aircraft and customers show a very positive response to flying in an airplane that feels new and modern but provides the emotional comfort people have for a 747...who knows. There are many examples of big successes from things initially panned. Either way the new 747-8i WON'T be as big a disaster as the new TROPICANA pack design from Arnell Group!



The world is missing love, let's use our flights to spread it!
User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10424 posts, RR: 14
Reply 7, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 19168 times:

Quoting VC10er (Reply 6):
It's so transparent that they are tring to overcome a 40 year old shape NOT be an issue.

40 years old and STILL better looking than the A380.

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
UA, DL take notice!

Lest we forget, it's doubtful that DL would have gone out and bought any 744s........they just happened to get the ones they have in the merger......I would bet that once they've gone, they'll be replaced with a big twin and not A380s.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5457 posts, RR: 30
Reply 8, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 19130 times:

The freighter has paid for the 748 program and the sales of the -8i have probably offset the cost of that program. I won't be surprised if the -8i gets a few more sales, though. Some airline may need a gap filler between the 77W and the 380.


What the...?
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30977 posts, RR: 86
Reply 9, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 19098 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 8):
The freighter has paid for the 748 program...

Well it hasn't paid for the program as of yet, but chances are good it will in the end.


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9097 posts, RR: 75
Reply 10, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 19087 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
Now the 747-8I is more advance than a 77W

The 77W is more advanced by a long long way.

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
747-8I can carry a better pay load

Not that much.

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
better cruising and top speed than a 77W

What M0.01 ? 0.83/0.84 on the 77W compared to 0.84/0.85 on the 747-8 ?

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
747 come off a military design

What military design was that ?

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
do you think airlines have a narrow mind with the 747-8I

No, the aircraft has limited applications, and the upper deck being so narrow is hard to put a standard modern seat configuration in.

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
Thank you LH and KAL, for haveing a open mind with the 747-8I.

Both ordered them as a result of compensation deals with Boeing. The LH deal was a result of closure of "Connexion by Boeing", and the KE deal due to the 787/747-8F delays. KE also make part of the 747-8.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 8):
The freighter has paid for the 748 program and the sales of the -8i have probably offset the cost of that program.

That is not how the program was launched, it was launched as a passenger airframe foremost and freighter as a secondary role.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 8):
Some airline may need a gap filler between the 77W and the 380.

So in your view the only airlines that will order the 747-8I have the 77W and A380, that is one short list.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13110 posts, RR: 100
Reply 11, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 18896 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I'm one of the few who see a market for the 748I, but it is a narrow market.
For premium seats, the A380 has better economics. The 748I is the plane for trunk routes with high Y demand (due to its ability to quite a bit of weight per m^2 of floor space).

As Stitch already noted, the 77W has better freight economics. For routes with high freight demand, 'up-gauging' pax capacity to the 748I is also 'down-gauging' the freight.

So the 748I is superior to the A380 and 77W for routes that:
1. Have low premium demand
2. High Y demand
3. Moderate freight demand with the advantage going to the 748I at the extreme end of the payload/range curve.

Now, it could be timing that creates those conditions. For example, LHR-HKG has two major time frames. One is very popular (multiple A/C by BA and CX) and the 'alternate time.' Perhaps in the mix the 748I plays a role?

I personally thought EK would order the type. They have quite a number of routes where the 748I makes more sense to me than the 77W or A388: MNL, SFO (low premium at just the right mission length to make the 748I look good), BLR, HYD (probably more Indian destinations), MAN, BHX, LGW, BKK (for some times, not all), and a few others.



It should be noted that having an additional type in the fleet bears its own expenses. My 'rule of thumb' analysis puts the minimum number of an airframe at 17. Otherwise, the economics of commonality pay off better than having the exact fleet type for each route.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
The 777-300ER and A380-800 perform so well in their roles, that the 747-8 is squeezed between them.

   In many ways this post is just an expansion of your post.

But for LH and KE, I see the niche.

Now don't ask me why LH put 80 J class seats in the 748I... I'll admit to not understanding the huge number of J seats as, to me, it seems to run counter to the 748I's advantages! Any links that explain the LH seating configuration would be appreciated.

I haven't heard KE's plans for 748I seating... Does anyone have a link for that? If they're also high premium, I'll just go into a corner and   


Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlinespeedygonzales From Norway, joined Sep 2007, 732 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 18600 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 7):
40 years old and STILL better looking than the A380.

40 years and STILL hasn't got a desperately needed nose job.



Las Malvinas son Argentinas
User currently offlineidlewild From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 137 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 18359 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting zeke (Reply 10):
Quoting zeke (Reply 10):
Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
747 come off a military design

What military design was that ?

It was competing with Lockheed and MDD for the Large USAF Transport competition back in the 1960s. The way I understand it, the C-5A won, but Boeing shopped the design around commercially and found takers. The rest is history.

Is the 748 an old design? It seems to me that so many parts, wing and snout to tail-fuselage designs and engines have been modified over the years that it's a completely new aircraft relative to the 742. Even the much revered Triple 7 uses the 767 nose design. Outside of a blended wing, I imagine all series of aircraft will look similar, but the materials and engines used over the years will make it a new design. Then again, customers are going to want what they are going to want.


User currently offlinewilco737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 9031 posts, RR: 75
Reply 14, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 18267 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Everybody is talking only about LH and KE as costumer for the 748i, but isn't Air China as well a costumer of the 748i now? And not to forget the VIP.

I know not too many orders, but I am sure the 747 will still go strong...

wilco737
  



It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
User currently offlineNorthstarBoy From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1832 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 18194 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting zeke (Reply 10):
What military design was that ?

The 747 was the result of a military RFP for a large cargo aircraft. Boeing, Lockheed and i believe MD all submitted designs. Lockheed won the contract because the military liked their high wing, low to the ground design and the result was the C-5. Juan Trippe saw enough potential in the Boeing design as a passenger airplane that he placed an order for 25 basically sight unseen. Like the 707 before it, Boeing bet the entire company to build the 747 and it became the "must have" airplane in the 1970s.



Why are people so against low yields?! If lower yields means more people can travel abroad, i'm all for it
User currently offlineSQ773 From Spain, joined Apr 2005, 197 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 18174 times:

Sayin that the 748 is an old design would be like saying that the 333 is an old design. The 333, probably the most elegant machine out there is similar to the A300B4 ? Ok, they have the same nose, a very similar tail and the same cabin windows. Yet, the 333 is not an old desing and both models have little in common.

Same goes with the 748 IMHO. Different wings, different engines, different windows, different shape...

Anyhow,

  

Quoting idlewild (Reply 13):
Then again, customers are going to want what they are going to want


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9097 posts, RR: 75
Reply 17, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 17960 times:

Quoting idlewild (Reply 13):
It was competing with Lockheed and MDD for the Large USAF Transport competition back in the 1960s. The way I understand it, the C-5A won, but Boeing shopped the design around commercially and found takers. The rest is history.
Quoting NorthstarBoy (Reply 15):
The 747 was the result of a military RFP for a large cargo aircraft. Boeing, Lockheed and i believe MD all submitted designs. Lockheed won the contract because the military liked their high wing, low to the ground design and the result was the C-5.

That is not correct.

The Douglas and Boeing submissions for the CX-HLS contract were both high wing 4 engine aircraft that look similar to the C-5, except they did not have a t-tail like the C-5.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinecobra27 From Slovenia, joined May 2001, 1012 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 17892 times:

Leahy said that you can't get many more performance than 787 (probably he meant A350, since 787 is less capable than even A330 in his quoute few years ago). Tube and wing, the classic design has reached its practical limit, there is only so much improvements in weight and aerodynamics you can do. I also don't believe in 5-10 Billion development figures for such conventional designs.
Next step is fundamentally new aerodynamics (blended) and new unducted engine. I think the first thing to have better aerodynamics would be to have a variable geometry vertical stabilizer that would fold into fuselage, since it so needed so much in cruise. Vertical stabiliser is almost the size of the wing, yet is only need to apply little yaw damper, croswind correcton and engine out.


User currently offlineSeJoWa From United States of America, joined May 2006, 352 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 17539 times:

This crops up again and again, and yet the primary source (ad fontes!) is quite clear, so I'll simply transcribe Joe Sutter's words (pages 82 and following from his book, all italics as per the original):

"On the phone, Rouzie broke the news to me that Pan American World Airways was pressing Boeing hard for an all-new airplane much larger than the 707. Would I like to leave the 737 program, he asked, and head up the company's studies for this bigger jet?"

"The military C-5 program was doing something extremely important for commercial aviation: fostering the development of high-bypass turbofan engines, a new technology that promised much larger, more powerful, and more fuel-efficient engines than the low-bypass-ratio fanjets then powering the world commercial jetliner fleet."

"Here was a situation unprecedented in the annals of aviation. Power plants usually lagged behind airframes and systems,"...

"I should add that fostering large high-bypass engines was all that the USAF C-5 competition contributed to the Boeing 747, as my new airplane would be called. Time and again there appears in print the logical but false assumption that Boeing took its losing military C-5 bid and revamped it as the commercial 747. In fact, the 747 would be an entirely original design that owes nothing to the C-5."

I do hope this (once again) clarifies things a bit.

On a sidenote, I'd be curious to know which airline's stewardess (sic   ) is almost completely dressed in pink on the book's cover pic.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30977 posts, RR: 86
Reply 20, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 15642 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

For those who believe the 747 is just a passenger version of the CX-HLS, I present:

Boeing CX-HLS Concept


Boeing 747-400XQLR Concept


One of these things is not like the other...  


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13110 posts, RR: 100
Reply 21, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 15581 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 20):
One of these things is not like the other...

The two are very different... It is interesting to see where certain design features evolved from. All aviation has been evolution for some time. I find it interesting to see how little the two wings have in common.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5457 posts, RR: 30
Reply 22, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 15531 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 10):

That is not how the program was launched, it was launched as a passenger airframe foremost and freighter as a secondary role.

Well it has been a happy accident then.

Quoting zeke (Reply 10):
So in your view the only airlines that will order the 747-8I have the 77W and A380, that is one short list.

That isn't quite what I said. Perhaps an airline decides it needs something between the 77W and the 380. There are lots of passenger capacity divisions among all of the airliners...some of those being quite small.

Regardless, either the 748i will sell more copies or it won't. Either way, it will have at least break even. There are worse things on this planet than getting your money back.

Big market or small, I have no doubts that those who have and will buy the 748i will be pleased with their purchase.



What the...?
User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10424 posts, RR: 14
Reply 23, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 15199 times:

Quoting speedygonzales (Reply 12):
40 years and STILL hasn't got a desperately needed nose job.

And STILL better looking than the A380........hell, the Dreamlifter is better looking.  



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineAirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 14931 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 7):
40 years old and STILL better looking than the A380.

Simply a matter of opinion.....nothing else.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 8):
The freighter has paid for the 748 program and the sales of the -8i have probably offset the cost of that program

Well, except that is not what Boeing is saying at all, so who is correct?

Quoting mayor (Reply 23):
And STILL better looking than the A380........hell, the Dreamlifter is better looking.

Again, mere opinion.....so why the necessity of trying so hard to make it definitive fact?


25 Revelation : Actually, Boeing has recently said that the program is in a "loss forward" position, i.e. all existing orders do not cover the cost of the program. A
26 mayor : So, isn't any appreciation of anything's beauty or design, just opinion? As you said.....I was just stating my opinion........there's no way it could
27 VC10er : MY OPINION: an A380 is just not a pretty airplane to me, even if a 747 never existed. The 747 is an object of beauty, a big object, but has spectacul
28 pnwtraveler : Airlines don't give a rats patootie about three quarters or more of what posters to Anet ascribe to them. If they made their decisions based on any of
29 Post contains links mercure1 : http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...sible-for-sparse-747-8i-sales.html 777-300ER vs. 747-8i has a nearly 15% CASM advantage. Other than a good pric
30 Post contains images Baroque : Apart from the tail, the lower one is just a southern Hemi version of the other. So difficult to tell apart from down here. That must be the trouble!
31 SEPilot : Wrong. The plane that competed for the C-5 contract was a completely different plane; one that looked more like the C-5 than the 747. The 747 was a t
32 deputydawghere : That's a real positive, productive contribution to this discussion.
33 DEVILFISH : A very good fit for PR were it not for their poor finances and the Cat II rating.
34 LHRBlueskies : 2 things buy airplanes, politics and/or economics - not emotions.
35 mayor : I'm wondering if the Pentagon wasn't influenced by the positive experiences they had had with the C-141 and C-130? Seems like the Boeing design is al
36 goblin211 : I'm surprised at how everyone is suddenly saying the 748 isn't selling as expected. Boeing made such a big deal at the opening ceremony about how it's
37 Post contains images Stitch : Well it is in some ways an updated 747-500X from 1996.
38 Post contains images mariner : LOL - the nose of the Boeing Stratocruiser wasn't exactly a thing of beauty and it didn't sell in vast numbers, but it was a great aircraft for the p
39 rwy04lga : Asked and answered. What part of the 747-8i is made by Korean Air Lines?
40 mercure1 : LOL, yes indeed. Now it just is gaining some slight benefit due lower SFC of GenX engines and some raked wingtip evolutions. I would have been more i
41 Post contains images Stitch : It's made by one of their subsidiaries - Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI). Of course, the logic of buying a $200 million airliner to support the $2 m
42 SEPilot : The tail would have been high enough that I doubt it would have an effect. Lockheed apparently liked T-tails, Boeing (in spite of the 727) not so muc
43 BMI727 : The catch is who they are marketing that too. It isn't the airlines. They don't know and furthermore don't care. They care about dollars and cents. T
44 Viscount724 : The 77W is more flexible than the 748. You may have demand for the additional seats for one or two months a year but does that warrant flying an aircr
45 Post contains links zeke : The Korean Air Tech Centre in Busan make the wing components for the 747-8, e.g. the flap track fairings, the wing extensions, and the raked wingtips
46 aviator23 : Isn't there such a thing as 'general opinion'? the 380 maybe technologically more advanced but i guess comparing the two in terms of design and look
47 eraugrad02 : I have a question. Did Boeing change the nose on the on the 747-8? It's longer/pointier than other 747's. Thanks for the input guys. Desmond in ILM,
48 Viscount724 : No change as far as I know. That would be a very expensive design change.
49 JBirdAV8r : That's rather akin to saying that the same people that make your refrigerator also star on "Saturday Night Live."
50 cosmofly : Airlines have sophisticated algorithms to run business scenarios for ROI maximization. Boeing can provide more options, thus more variables for airlin
51 Post contains images mercure1 : A small chart showing the estimated block fuel burns for the following large WB aircraft in use or in development. All block burns assume 40t of payl
52 Post contains images lightsaber : I agree on all points. I'm certain there would be other airlines that would be a good fit for the 748I if their finances were better. But heck, Ferra
53 VC10er : Embraer gave me and my company an in depth study done by a 3rd party as it came to the E-170 to E-190 program. Yes you are correct - but so am I. - H
54 baw716 : Well, I'll add my thoughts here too... First, the 748i is a damn beautiful airplane. It will be a strong performer in its "niche". I say "niche" becau
55 zeke : All of those estimates look out by a long way. The relationship of block fuel to distance should not be linear, fuel flows at lighter weights is lowe
56 Post contains images mercure1 : Zeke, these are block burns for the same payload of 40t. The values are not exactly linear. The R-square for the trendline is around .998 I created a
57 max999 : Does anyone else find the title of this thread an insult to the intelligence of airline fleet planners and executives?
58 manfredj : No, and I'm a huge 747 fan. The 748i hasnt even been delivered yet. Lets not forget the 773 was deemed a failure in its first days as well. Ordering
59 afterburner : Whenever there is a thread comparing the economics 747 with A380, there are always people who write that 747 is more beautiful, 747 is still the queen
60 zeke : The numbers are still a long way out. The 346, 744 77W, 359 are all loaded to about 60% of their maximum payload, 748 about 50%, and the A380 40%. Th
61 Aquila3 : Well, call me anticonformist then. I am a passenger of today, amd not a dreamer of tomorrow. Today the best trip experience I get is on a 340 (that h
62 astuteman : Your chart shows the A380 burning 25% more fuel than the 748i..... If that were really the case, then a) Airbus would never sell an A380, and b) you'
63 Post contains images wilco737 : The A380 has a lot higher fuel flow than the 748. It is a lot heavier, bigger etc etc. BUT if you have a full airplane on both, then per pax per mile
64 Cargolex : Every time this debate comes up, I'm amazed at the kind of sparring that goes on about the 747-8. It's a good airplane. But unlike the 744 in 1989 or
65 Stitch : Actually, Skymark plans to run an extremely low-density configuration of 118C and 280Y (total 398) with lie-flat Business Class and an Economy cabin
66 Post contains images astuteman : Nobody but an idiot would be surprised that an A380 burns more fuel than a 748i. It's the magnitude of the difference that I'm querying. Rgds
67 mariner : That's intensely subjective, there is not one answer. A Turner landscape and a cubist Picasso both fulfill all those conditions, but one might be reg
68 JayinKitsap : He should redo the chart on a per ton basis based on the capacity of the plane. A small plane the 40T is near capcity, on the 748F and A380 it is a s
69 DocLightning : People love talking about the 744, but let's put it in perspective. The 744 had EIS in 1989. So as early as 1985, Boeing was offering the new type. In
70 mercure1 : Plz send me a more typical mission profile; Payload and ESAD for comparison, and I will recalc the figures. Regards
71 Post contains links Baroque : A lot??? I thought SQ data suggest that "a lot" is what I would have thought to be a smallish number - less than 5%. And does this thread from 2007 s
72 autothrust : Never ever! The Dreamlifter is the most ugly thing flying in the skies, IMHO. A 747 on steroids is not looking better then a A380 with a nice paint j
73 Stitch : The latest numbers from LH (2011) are: A388: 3.4 liters per 100km with 549 Seats B748: 3.7 liters per 100km with 386 Seats
74 autothrust : Thanks for info. My numbers were older i guess. Even though thats still a big diffrence.
75 328JET : The problem for most airlines is the fleet size of the longhaul fleet. Not every airline can afford to operate three or more different aircraft famili
76 airfrnt : There is simply not a sustainable market for VLA at this point. Neither Boeing's 748 nor the 380 are likely to ever turn a profit on the overall progr
77 AM744 : I might be daydreaming here but, would it be completely idiotic for AM to get maybe three of four? At the end of the day, we hear time and time again
78 Amsterdam : There is a rumour at KLM, that KLM is seriously looking at the 747-8. That the 748 is more efficient than previously thought, and that the backlog of
79 mayor : Slightly off topic, but even with late deliveries on the 787, will the A350 STILL be delivered before the 787?
80 Stitch : The 747-8 burns 9% more fuel per seat, but it has 30% less seats. In 2009, when LH was projecting 405 seats in their 747-8, the fuel burn difference
81 AADC10 : Nobody seems to have taken note that 747s are almost universally 10 abreast in Y with 17" to 17.2" wide seats. The economics of the 748i are good only
82 Viscount724 : There's very little apparent difference in seating space between a 10-abreast 747 and 9-abreast 777. It's hard to compare seat widths if you're using
83 Scipio : Lufthansa's A380s are configured with 526 seats, not 549. Can you confirm your source? Its seat configurations are as follows (A380/B748i): F: 8 / 8
84 enilria : In fact, airlines are routinely flying planes slower to burn less fuel. More likely the reason is that the plane is too big for current traffic level
85 Post contains images wilco737 : That's what I can found as well only. 526 seats. 8/98/420. wilco737
86 Stitch : The source was Lufthansa, whose Long-haul aircraft comparison charts released over the past couple of years showed 549 seats for the A380-800.
87 Post contains images wilco737 : That's interesting as seatguru.com and the LH intranet only say 526 seats. wilco737
88 Post contains links Viscount724 : LH website seating diagram shows 526 (8/98/420). http://www.lufthansa.com/mediapool/p...ul%20fleet&blt_z=Airbus%20A380-800
89 Post contains images Stitch : With 526 seats, the A380's fuel burn should be higher than with 549 seats. I'd guess 3.5l per 100 passenger kilometers, which is still excellent. Here
90 qfa787380 : I am quite confident that AF/KL will get both the 787(788 and 789) and the 350(359 and 3510). They are so late to the party that to get slots within
91 VC10er : I can't really draw and exact analogy from this but...the Empire State Building at the time it was built was sort of like an A380. The Empire State Bu
92 seabosdca : I disagree. I think the difference between 9Y 777 and 10Y 747 is much more noticeable than the difference between 10Y 747 and 10Y 777. At 10Y, both a
93 mercure1 : Predicted 748 fuel burn for a 5000nm segment w/ 52.6t payload (assumed 386 pax @ 100kg each + 14t cargo). Burn 97,117kgs and flt time 10:17 Predicted
94 tullamarine : It will dominate its niche as it is the only one in it. The problem is the niche is tiny. Correct. Aesthetics come a very poor second behind economic
95 zeke : Its does not have "a lot higher fuel flow", in fact the A380 can have a lower fuel flow than the 744. The 747-8 numbers really only look good compare
96 Post contains images wilco737 : Yes, it CAN, but it CAN have a lot higher fuel flow as well. I compared 2 flights: NRT-FRA on 380 and 744. The 380 had an average fuel flow of almost
97 zeke : The A380 does not average "almost 15 tons". The numbers presented are for a 40t payload, well below what the A380 is capable of carrying. I have also
98 Post contains links 328JET : To compare the fuel burn of the B744 and A388 from Lufthansa, i started the following thread some time ago: Lufthansa: A388 Vs B744 Fuel Consumption (
99 Post contains images wilco737 : Zeke, thank you for your reply. I had the flight plan for that flight in my hands and it said average fuel flow 14500 kgs per hour. This is almost 15
100 zeke : Not even close, that is why the reserve fuel is calculated at landing weight for every flight. It depends on weight and the time the fuel was carried
101 Post contains images wilco737 : Well, looks like my airline does it like that. If I take 10 tons extra fuel, that is around one hour. It is only for us pilots in the cockpit. Not fo
102 Thrust : The sad part about the 748 is that it seems like it's too big for carriers in the USA. I was told one of the reasons UA is retiring the 747-400s is no
103 Airvan00 : Wins in terms of fuel-effciency? I think the discussion in this thread disproves that, and QF and SQ have come to the same conclusion.
104 Post contains images Baroque : And as QF shareholder, I would be shocked if they went with a plane that likely has seat mile costs higher (ON AVERAGE!!!!) by about 7% AND has not y
105 StressedOut : How would you know this pray tell?
106 Baroque : More or less with exactly the same degree of certitude that allows prediction of how well the 748i will perform. Or in other words by applying Q mode
107 speedygonzales : How will the -8 improve comfort over the 400? Of all the long haul flights I've been on recently, the 747 ranks firmly at the bottom in terms of comf
108 CXB77L : But comfort is a very subjective issue. Besides, it also depends on how airlines configure their aircraft. I recently flew on NZ's 744s and found the
109 YULWinterSkies : No, airlines are not retarded. Look at how the 737NG and the A330 sell. Both are also based on designs from the early 70s. It has to do with their ne
110 Post contains images Baroque : My prize change in comfort level was actually not from an A380, but from a CX A340 Johannesburg to Hong Kong, and then to a CX 744 Hong Kong to Sydne
111 Stitch : I would expect the 747-8 to be quieter than the 747-400 due to the engines being quieter. LH is also putting additional noise insulation in the nose o
112 328JET : NO, they are not. Assuming that you mean, the A330 is based on the A300, you also have to assume that the B737NG is based on the B707... That is both
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...
Will There Be A Live Feed From The 747-8I First Fl posted Wed Jan 12 2011 19:42:01 by bg8810
Greenpoint Introduces the Aeroloft for the 747-8i. posted Tue Oct 19 2010 22:50:52 by cosmofly
"if" The 747-8i Catches Us By Surprise... posted Sun Sep 19 2010 09:13:47 by VC10er
Which Airlines Have ZED Fares With Others? posted Mon Jun 2 2008 23:25:52 by HALFA
Qantas Rules Out The 747-8I And The 777. posted Thu Mar 13 2008 04:33:56 by Thorben
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