Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
77W Vs 748i. 748 For EK?  
User currently offlineRaptor1090 From United Arab Emirates, joined May 2011, 82 posts, RR: 0
Posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 6503 times:

A while back Emirates president Tim Clark said that the success of the Boeing 777-300ER is behind the lack of success so far for the 747-8I. "What Boeing is up against is not the A380, it is their own machine - the 777-300ER,"

source: http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...sible-for-sparse-747-8i-sales.html

I also read somewhere that Emirates would look to buy 748is' if Boeing offered a version with lower capacity and greater range and that Boeing was looking into doing something about it.

So, I was just wondering what you a.netters thoughts are on the matter? Could a version of the 748 be a potential replacement for the 777?

[Edited 2011-06-02 11:34:21]

12 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5589 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 6121 times:

It has become quite clear that Tim Clark was using the passenger 748 only as a way to pressure Airbus on the A380, and never intended to buy any. Boeing themselves figured that out early on, which is why we ultimately got the larger 8000 nm 748 desired by LH rather than the shorter 8500 nm variant Clark was talking about.

He is very correct, though, that the 748 has suffered more from the 77W than the A380.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15778 posts, RR: 27
Reply 2, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 6092 times:

Quoting Raptor1090 (Thread starter):
Could a version of the 748 be a potential replacement for the 777?

No. It's the other way around.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31097 posts, RR: 85
Reply 3, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 5939 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Raptor1090 (Thread starter):
So, I was just wondering what you a.netters thoughts are on the matter?

Tim Clark was never serious about a 747-8 order. Even if Boeing somehow could extend the nominal range to 8500nm, he still would not buy it.

What he really wants is a 777-300ERX that can fly 8500nm nominal range and if Boeing and GE can give it to him, I expect he'll order a couple score, minimum.


I admit I don't see how EK could have used the 747-8 "against" the A380, nor do I see Boeing willing to allow it to be used in such a way, considering how important the 777-300ER is to EK. If Boeing offered EK the 747-8 at a very steep discount to either try and win business or force Airbus to lower their price on the A380, all they would have done is encouraged Tim Clark to say "well, I really don't want the 747-8, but I'll happily take more 777-300ERs at that price, since it's cheaper than the great deal I am already getting".

Boeing:   

Also, with the number of A380s EK has on order, Tim Clark has all the leverage he needs to "keep Airbus honest".


User currently offlineYULWinterSkies From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2182 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 4249 times:

Yeah, that's actually one thing that puzzles me, EK has no 748I on order, yet giant fleets of 77W and A380... There is a significant capacity gap between the two, and it is perfectly filled by the 748I. There should be room for both 77W and 748I in a carrier the size of EK.


When I doubt... go running!
User currently onlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8420 posts, RR: 7
Reply 5, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 4051 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting YULWinterSkies (Reply 4):

Yeah, that's actually one thing that puzzles me, EK has no 748I on order, yet giant fleets of 77W and A380... There is a significant capacity gap between the two, and it is perfectly filled by the 748I. There should be room for both 77W and 748I in a carrier the size of EK.

Why does Emirates need to buy 748's ? They adjust the seats on their 777 and A380 by having 2 and 3 class configurations of each type. Need a plane for 575 passengers to Mumbai, a regional A380 with J and Y does it. 275 passengers for a flight to California, a 777LR will do it with luxury F and J classes. For JFK, 490 seat A380 will deliver a great 14 hour flight to the USA.


User currently offlineRaptor1090 From United Arab Emirates, joined May 2011, 82 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3409 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):
Tim Clark was never serious about a 747-8 order. Even if Boeing somehow could extend the nominal range to 8500nm, he still would not buy it.

What makes you say that? If the 748i is more economical than the 777 as Clark himself said, wouldn't it be a better option? Emirates has ordered 748Fs (through DAE capital), so why wouldn't they want to get the Intercontinental as well?
It'd be really cool to see a pax 747 in EK colours!


User currently offlineAquila3 From Italy, joined Nov 2010, 273 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3172 times:

The only reason that I can see is availability / backlog. Since I believe that even if you are EK you will have to wait a while for a 777 (forget a 380 for the moment) , and not so much for 748. Just my 2c.


chi vola vale chi vale vola chi non vola è un vile
User currently offlineAirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3005 times:

Quoting YULWinterSkies (Reply 4):
Yeah, that's actually one thing that puzzles me, EK has no 748I on order, yet giant fleets of 77W and A380... There is a significant capacity gap between the two, and it is perfectly filled by the 748I. There should be room for both 77W and 748I in a carrier the size of EK.
Quoting Raptor1090 (Reply 6):
It'd be really cool to see a pax 747 in EK colours!

To be honest, this is more or less what these repeated threads are about......that EK and others should take 748i's just because they are available. Just because there is a capacity difference between the two aircraft is no reason whatsoever to use it because of that.. Contrary to popular belief on here, EK are a superbly run/organised airline and easily use their A380's and 777's based on what they know the capacity demands of a route are. For example, the 777 is perfectly matched to what they need for LAX so can you perhaps explain where all those extra pax are going to materialise from by putting a 748i on the route (but yet still not requiring an A380)??? Thus, people here want the 748i for the sake of it irrespective of whether it is actually required.


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31097 posts, RR: 85
Reply 9, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2672 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):
Tim Clark was never serious about a 747-8 order. Even if Boeing somehow could extend the nominal range to 8500nm, he still would not buy it.
Quoting Raptor1090 (Reply 6):
What makes you say that? If the 748i is more economical than the 777 as Clark himself said, wouldn't it be a better option?

EK's underlying issue is that their flights to LAX and SFO are just too long from DXB for anything but the 777-200LR. Even the A340-500 can't do the mission at full payload and it has the advantage of having four engines, so it can better handle high ambient temperatures at DXB.

But the 777-200LR has 88 less Economy seats than the 777-300ER so EK either has to deny sales to a large number of passengers or upgrade Business and/or Economy Class passengers into any available First and Business Class seats to open up more Economy seats.

The 777-300ER is the next step in capacity within the EK fleet, but as noted, it can't go out at a full payload due to needing to tank more fuel to make the trip. And because it is a twin, it is also affected by ambient temperatures - the higher the temperature at DXB, the more payload they need to unload.

Because they are quads, the A380-800 and 747-8 are significantly less affected by high temperatures. They also have more range than the 777-300ER (750nm in the case of the A380-800 and 500nm more in the case of the 747-8 when all three planes are at MZFW). However. that's not enough range to allow them to fly at full payload, either. So just as the 777-300ER has to go out with empty seats, so would a 747-8 or A380-800.

Airbus is working hard to increase the performance of the A380-800. While the new 573t MTOW variant won't make a real difference, when Airbus comes out with a 590t or even 600t model (as they will likely do before the end of the decade), that plane will be able to make LAX and SFO with a full payload of 500 passengers.

So even if EK did buy the 747-8, it would have a very short useful life before the A380-800HGWs replaced them. So I doubt it makes economic sense. Better to just take the hit with the 777-300ER and push Boeing to make it better and wait for the new A380-800 weight variants.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15778 posts, RR: 27
Reply 10, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2610 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 9):
it is also affected by ambient temperatures - the higher the temperature at DXB, the more payload they need to unload.

That probably isn't a huge issue considering that the LAX flights leave at 2:15 am and 8:50 am while the SFO flight leaves at 8:20 am.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4800 posts, RR: 40
Reply 11, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2592 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 10):
That probably isn't a huge issue considering that the LAX flights leave at 2:15 am and 8:50 am while the SFO flight leaves at 8:20 am.

Well even at these times it can be very hot in Dubai.  .

But Stitch has explained the issue this topic is about perfectly. And therefore also I do not see the B747-8i coming to EK. Not sooner, and also not later.  . Too bad since it is a beautiful 4-holer, which always is extra appealing to me by the looks of it.


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31097 posts, RR: 85
Reply 12, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2535 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 10):
That probably isn't a huge issue considering that the LAX flights leave at 2:15 am and 8:50 am while the SFO flight leaves at 8:20 am.

I don't know what the average ambient is in DXB throughout the day, but I do know that on the DXB-JFK mission, if the ambient is 37°C, the 777-300ER that plies that route needs to unload 1.7t of belly cargo.


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...
748I Vs A388 Step-climb Issue posted Fri Feb 9 2007 07:50:16 by SCAT15F
Will VS Order The 748I? posted Tue Aug 1 2006 20:09:30 by NYC777
No Smoking Vs Turn Off Electronic Devices Sign posted Sun May 29 2011 15:45:36 by CO777DAL
NZ & VS Start New Codeshare Agreement posted Wed Jan 12 2011 08:37:28 by johruk
Future Of VS FF & Codeshare Arrangements W CO/UA posted Sat Jan 8 2011 20:04:47 by NZStevenC
Cathay Pacific A343 Vs A333 posted Sat Jan 8 2011 08:50:49 by LAX888
Caribbean Vs. Reunion & Mauritius posted Fri Jan 7 2011 10:05:02 by A388
AA Vs. Online Agents Death Spiral Continues posted Wed Jan 5 2011 10:44:29 by mogandoCI
QF Or VS Twin-screw At LAX 12-28-10? posted Tue Dec 28 2010 07:27:20 by warden145
VS's B 747-400s/A380s posted Mon Dec 27 2010 21:46:08 by United Airline