Gonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1675 posts, RR: 0 Posted (9 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 21823 times:
Is it me or the number of orders for the Pax version of the 747-800 is extremely low ?? I would expected a big number of 744 operators "taking the up-grade" but it seems that only a few like LH and KE are following that logic...
The freighter version is apparently more successful...
RobK From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2004, 3932 posts, RR: 19 Reply 1, posted (9 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 21799 times:
Quoting Gonzalo (Thread starter): I would expected a big number of 744 operators "taking the up-grade" but it seems that only a few like LH and KE are following that logic...
The 773ER can do most of what the 748I can do and it's cheaper to buy and operate. No brainer. Also may I suggest you do a search for old discussions of this topic. It crops up on a near-monthly basis and has been discussed to death. Thanks.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26717 posts, RR: 83 Reply 2, posted (9 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 21735 times:
LH has always wanted a larger 747 to slot between the A340-600 and A380-800 so once Boeing finally committed to it, LH was a natural launch customer.
One pundit claims KE only bought the plane because they make parts for it, but that seems to be an expensive way to support your own factory.
Boeing is hopeful they will sell more, but then they pretty much have to be.
Still, the 747-8 strikes me as a niche plane, designed for routes where premium traffic is strong, but Economy traffic is weak. If you have decent premium and strong Economy, the 777-300ER is better and if you have strong premium and strong Economy, you want the A380-800.
The increase in MTOW has allowed Boeing to raise the maximum payload to place it farther up-market then the 777-300ER and once GE is able to bring the engine fuel burn to spec that will help, as well. In such a scenario, the 747-8 could become a logical step for 777-300ER customers seeing stronger growth in premium and Economy traffic. That being said, I still think it's going to have a tough fight against the A380-800 as these are long-term purchases so an operator might decide to take the risk up front with the A380-800 if they feel they will grow into it over the life of the asset.
Vasu From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 3761 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (9 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 21591 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 2): Still, the 747-8 strikes me as a niche plane, designed for routes where premium traffic is strong, but Economy traffic is weak. If you have decent premium and strong Economy, the 777-300ER is better and if you have strong premium and strong Economy, you want the A380-800.
Why is this? What about each aircraft makes it better for each purpose?
Roseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 8745 posts, RR: 52 Reply 4, posted (9 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 21485 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
Still, the 747-8 strikes me as a niche plane, designed for routes where premium traffic is strong, but Economy traffic is weak. If you have decent premium and strong Economy, the 777-300ER is better and if you have strong premium and strong Economy, you want the A380-800.
I'm not sure I understand that logic. I understand the A380 needs strong demand due to it having such a capacity that it is hard to maintain a reasonable RASM with it. However I don't understand the 777 comparison.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26717 posts, RR: 83 Reply 5, posted (9 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 21426 times:
Quoting Vasu (Reply 3): Why is this? What about each aircraft makes it better for each purpose?
The main cabin of the 747-8 aft of Door 1 is about the same length as the main cabin of the 777-300ER. With First Class on the 747-8 in the nose, that allows another two rows of Business Class to be fitted on the main deck plus the Business Class seating that can be fit on the upper deck. So if your an airline who puts First and Business Class forward of Door 3 on a 747-8 and a 777-300ER, you could fit upwards of 30 more Business Class seats on the 747-8. You could then fit pretty much the same number of Economy seats between Door 3 and Door 5 on both planes.
Thanks to having two decks, on the A380-800 you can dedicate the entire lower deck to Economy and the entire upper deck to First and Business Class.
It will be interesting to see how many seats Korean Airlines puts into their 747-8.
Their A380-800 seats 407: 12 First | 94 Business | 301 Economy
Their 747-400 seats 333: 10 First | 61 Business | 262 Economy *
Their 777-300ER seats 291: 8 First | 56 Business | 227 Economy
I therefore think their 747-8 will be 365: 10 First | 83 Business Class | 272 Economy **
* - This is the configuration with the Kosmo First Class Suite and the lie-flat Prestige Business Class seat
** - This would also be Kosmo First Class with two more rows of Prestige on each deck and one more row of Economy
Max Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 3289 posts, RR: 19 Reply 7, posted (9 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 20762 times:
Quoting RobK (Reply 1):
The 773ER can do most of what the 748I can do and it's cheaper to buy and operate. No brainer. Also may I suggest you do a search for old discussions of this topic. It crops up on a near-monthly basis and has been discussed to death. Thanks.
May I suggest if you don't want to read it, then don't.
Seriously, so what if it's been discussed before ? Myself and others like to revisit certain topics and why not ?
New perspectives, attitudes and information are always out there and are interesting to many of us.
You always have a choice you know..
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
flightsimer From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 409 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (9 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 20731 times:
There are nine Boeing 747-8I BBJS on order. All were ordered by Heads of states or royal families in the Gulf/Asia region. I believe a single individual has one on order as well, but I can't remember for sure.
And just to mention, there is currently only one A380 Business jet ordered.
woodsboy From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 1011 posts, RR: 3 Reply 9, posted (9 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 20678 times:
The 747-8 was a vanity project, nothing more. There were and currently are not enough orders to make the project viable. I believe it was in response to the A380 which has also not sold in large numbers. Boeing would have been better served by allocating resources to a new narrow body family but now that is far in the future. The 748 is by all accounts an excellent airplane for both pax and cargo but as was said earlier is a niche plane who's niche is very small. If Boeing can keep the 748 in production at a very slow rate they may eventually be able to break even but with the prospect of the upgraded 777 it seems unlikely that the 748 will last as long as the 744, production wise.
N766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 7992 posts, RR: 27 Reply 10, posted (9 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 20579 times:
The simple fact is that there just isn't much of a market for very large jets! The A380 isn't selling particularly well, either, but because it is simply "the largest" it holds the top spot for that category and is at least able to garner some orders. The 747-8 isn't the biggest, so if you're looking for the biggest you won't buy it. It's also doesn't have the best range or the best economics, the 777-200LR/300ER sap customers there. It's just too niche! Anything bigger than a 777/A340 is going to struggle.
If orders were based on looks, though, the 747 would be hitting it out of the park. Gorgeous jet- always has been.
mop357 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 85 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (9 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 19862 times:
It's a lot more economical to fly 2 engines instead of 4. No engine gets anywhere near 100% efficiency. So the more engines the more inefficiency which means wasted fuel. In plane English why feed 4 engines when you can feed only 2. The B777-300 burns 20% less fuel than the B747-400 (http://www.britishairways.com/travel/boeing-777-300/public/en_gb). The B747-800 is a great aircraft, but the B777-300 can do the job for less most of the time.
Quoting N766UA (Reply 10): It's just too niche! Anything bigger than a 777/A340 is going to struggle.
I agree. Times have changed. IMHO airlines are better off flying slightly smaller planes with more frequency for most markets.
workhorse From France, joined Jul 2005, 211 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 18785 times:
How does the per trip fuel burn compare between the 77W and the 748i?
In another thread here, someone mentioned that at current fuel prices, the fuel bill difference between the 744 and the 77W for a HKG-LHR was around $36,000, so what about the 748i?
ebj1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 2 Reply 13, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 18673 times:
Quoting woodsboy (Reply 9): The 747-8 was a vanity project, nothing more.
Doesn't make good business sense. Building to satisfy your vanity amounts to throwing money out the window. I can't for the life of me believe Boeing would do that. Was the project a gamble? Probably. There was no certainty that there would be massive orders for the passenger model. However, I suspect Boeing believed cargo model sales would even out the tally sheet. And, as has been said before, it's still too soon to say the airplane is a failure. The economy could change for the better and airliner sales could soar. Will that happen? Again, it's too soon to say.
CXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2183 posts, RR: 4 Reply 15, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 18302 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
Quoting woodsboy (Reply 9): The 747-8 was a vanity project, nothing more. There were and currently are not enough orders to make the project viable. I believe it was in response to the A380 which has also not sold in large numbers.
Boeing had been toying around with the idea of a bigger 747 since the mid 1990s, with the 747-500X, 747-600X and 747-700X concepts that never made it to production. My understanding is that there was quite some interest in these models, but the Asian Financial Crisis of the mid 1990s killed it off.
Then there's LH wanting a larger 747 for many years, and with the 787 engine technology becoming available, it was possible to improve the 747 significantly, which will cater not only to those who want a larger 747, but also the 747F (whether it be -200F, -400F or -400BCF) replacement markets. Upgrading an existing frame would be somewhat cheaper than designing an entirely new one, so even if the 747-8 program doesn't secure many orders, Boeing aren't going to take a big hit. Not launching the 747-8 would have been the mistake.
While the passenger 747-8 may not last too much longer with the advent of the 777-9X, the 747 will live on for many years to come as a freighter. If Boeing did nothing to update the 744F, the economics of the 777F will likely kill it. Launching the 747-8 program was absolutely the right decision, in my view.
Gonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1675 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 17577 times:
Quoting flightsimer (Reply 8): There are nine Boeing 747-8I BBJS on order. All were ordered by Heads of states or royal families in the Gulf/Asia region. I believe a single individual has one on order as well, but I can't remember for sure.
Thanks for your info.
Quoting flightsimer (Reply 8): And just to mention, there is currently only one A380 Business jet ordered.
At least in this specific segment of customers, the 748 is really beating up the poor A380
Quoting mop357 (Reply 11): It's a lot more economical to fly 2 engines instead of 4. No engine gets anywhere near 100% efficiency. So the more engines the more inefficiency which means wasted fuel. In plane English why feed 4 engines when you can feed only 2.
Absolutely, but ( at least until recent times AFAIK ) there were some issues with the ETOPS certification for certain routes, I guess the increase in the engine's reliability played a role here...?
n729pa From UK - England, joined Jan 2011, 262 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 17343 times:
Even though it's state of the art etc, there are bound to be some that will look upon it as yesterday's plane now. "We've just ordered the latest 747" ..... could be countered by a rival "In 1969 we were a launch customer for the 747, today 4x (fortysomething) years on we are still pioneering new planes with the xxx" .....a bit of an image issue too IMO.
It's like Toyota or Ford dropping the top selling Corolla or Escort name after 40 years or so, after a bit no matter how many face lifts it has, people want something new.
I think the 748 is stuck between a rock and hard place now, I think it will carry on for a while as new build freighters but I reckon in 5-10 years the 747 will stop production, which will be a shame but to comes to everything in the end.
Bongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3018 posts, RR: 2 Reply 19, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 17292 times:
The obvious answer is that its a plane the airlines don't want, as it flies ok, and has appeared more or less on time, the problem would appear to be one of two things:
Boeing will have talked to major airlines before they launched the 748-I and asked who was interested, either the airlines said "you make it and we'll buy it" whilst having little intention to do so, or the airlines said "not interested" and Boeing didn't listen.
To my mind the fundamental problem is that its underpinned by a design from the mid 60's Of course a lot of it is new, but its still constrained by parts of the original design, and an airline looking for a plane to last the next 25 years may well think that basing it on an ancient design to start with is not a good idea.
redflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4179 posts, RR: 30 Reply 20, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 17165 times:
Quoting Max Q (Reply 7): May I suggest if you don't want to read it, then don't.
Seriously, so what if it's been discussed before ? Myself and others like to revisit certain topics and why not ?
New perspectives, attitudes and information are always out there and are interesting to many of us.
You always have a choice you know..
Amen. I love reading about the same topics over the years. As you say, fresh perspectives are always welcome and, besides, the market dynamics are always changing so new issues are injected into the discourse.
Quoting woodsboy (Reply 9): The 747-8 was a vanity project, nothing more.
I'd say that was probably a little more true of the A380, although even in that instance it wasn't entirely on the spot. No one launches a multi-billion dollar project for vanity purposes. If they do then they are not accountable for the money that is spent and put at risk. (Think governments.)
Quoting woodsboy (Reply 9): There were and currently are not enough orders to make the project viable.
As long as the freighter version sells, it's a moot point.
Quoting woodsboy (Reply 9): I believe it was in response to the A380 which has also not sold in large numbers.
That is probably a more apt reason. I think when Boeing launched the 748 they were running scared thinking that perhaps the market for VLAs was bigger than what they thought it would be. They were bamboozled by Airbus into launching the program out of fear. If they hadn't, the 744 would have died a slow death by now and no one would have noticed. But who knows, they may have been still selling freighter versions of that model or just fallen back on the 777F for the large freighter business.
Quoting Gonzalo (Thread starter): Is it me or the number of orders for the Pax version of the 747-800 is extremely low ?? I would expected a big number of 744 operators "taking the up-grade" but it seems that only a few like LH and KE are following that logic...
I think it's a reflection of the VLA market itself. It's just not there.
MEA-707 From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4117 posts, RR: 37 Reply 21, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 16997 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 2): Still, the 747-8 strikes me as a niche plane, designed for routes where premium traffic is strong, but Economy traffic is weak. If you have decent premium and strong Economy, the 777-300ER is better and if you have strong premium and strong Economy, you want the A380-800.
I appreciate your earlier explanation but if planners forget a moment that the upperdeck MUST have premium pax and forget the door placement and just see the three plane types as having a certain amount of square meters to fill up, then it mustn't make any difference, right? You can also put bulkheads between different classes in the middle of two doors. Say for example you need 1 square meter for an economy passenger and 2 square meter floorspace for business/first you can just slam slightly more pax in a 748i then a 77W and then quite some more in an A-380 so all three types can be used in mainly business, mixed or fully economy configuration.
The only difference would be that the A-380 economy is standard 10 abreast and is not certified (yet?) for 11 abreast so its Y product is of a higher quality level then a tighter 77Win which more and more airlines put 10 abreast, with the 748i just in between.
nobody has ever died from hard work, but why take the risk?
CXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2183 posts, RR: 4 Reply 22, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 16967 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 19): To my mind the fundamental problem is that its underpinned by a design from the mid 60's Of course a lot of it is new, but its still constrained by parts of the original design, and an airline looking for a plane to last the next 25 years may well think that basing it on an ancient design to start with is not a good idea.
I disagree with that. Why would an update of the 747 have a shorter service life than a new A380, for instance? They're both brand new aircraft, which are designed with a specific service life in mind. I see no reason why 25 years from now, a brand new 747-8 bought today would be any less likely to still be in service than a brand new A380 bought today.
The 737's base design is one that is even older than the 747, yet it still seems to be selling very well. The 747-8 is no more a 60s aircraft than the 737MAX.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26717 posts, RR: 83 Reply 23, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 16601 times:
Quoting MEA-707 (Reply 21): I appreciate your earlier explanation but if planners forget a moment that the upperdeck MUST have premium pax and forget the door placement and just see the three plane types as having a certain amount of square meters to fill up, then it mustn't make any difference, right?
True, but I expect airline planners don't look at it that simply.
You can certainly put Economy seats in the upper deck of the 747, but it's traditionally been Business Class because it's a more effective use of the space than the main deck. Same with the A380.
Quoting woodsboy (Reply 9): The 747-8 was a vanity project, nothing more.
As others have said before me, this is nonsense. Boeing believed the plane had a valid business case so they launched it. And even then, they launched it first as a freighter and didn't spend any additional funds on the passenger model until Lufthansa placed a significant order.
And the freighter launched quite strong. I believe it had north of 80 orders within three years, which the 747-400F did not reach until after a decade on the market. And cargo operators are retiring converted 747-400 freighters while taking delivery of new 747-8Fs because even with the fuel burn and maximum payload misses, the plane is still capable of lifting a fair bit more and burning a fair bit less fuel.
N62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3681 posts, RR: 4 Reply 24, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 16409 times:
Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 19): its still constrained by parts of the original design, and an airline looking for a plane to last the next 25 years may well think that basing it on an ancient design to start with is not a good idea.
Compared to a 747-100, the 747-8 is a much different plane, so I don't really agree with this "it's an ancient design" line of thinking, unless by "ancient design" you mean it is a tube with wings attached.
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 22): The 737's base design is one that is even older than the 747, yet it still seems to be selling very well. The 747-8 is no more a 60s aircraft than the 737MAX.
I was just thinking about this the other day: At what point is what Boeing calls a 737 not really a 737? In other words, is the 737MAX sufficiently different from the 737-100 that it could really be called a new airplane, and for convenience/marketing reasons, Boeing is just still calling it a 737?
tonymctigue From Ireland, joined Feb 2006, 1874 posts, RR: 9 Reply 25, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 17097 times:
There is alot of critisim about using what is fundamentally a 50 year old design but here's the thing. That same 50 year old design is what makes the Boeing 747 so suitable for its original intended use, the same use that will keep it flying for years to come long after its passenger days are over and that use is carrying cargo. Placing the cockpit above the main cargo deck gives in the capability of being loaded through the nose, a feature that no other aircraft currently operating commercially (other than the An124/An225) can do. A good idea doesn't become a bad idea just because it is 50 years old.
In fact, I can see a situation where the biggest threat to the B748F project comes not from the A380F or any other freight aircraft but from the B744! Passenger airlines are dropping them from their fleets to beat the band, flooding the market with second hand frames, many of them capable of flying for years to come. Seems to me to be good economics for cargo airlines to acquire and convert these ex passenger 744s to freighters. The cost would be tiny in comparison to a new build B748F albeit a bit more costly to run.
Just my
Next Flights CX178 MEL-HKG; CX257 HKG-LHR; EI387 LHR-SNN
KDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 155 posts, RR: 0 Reply 26, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 16947 times:
Quoting Gonzalo (Thread starter): Is it me or the number of orders for the Pax version of the 747-800 is extremely low ?? I would expected a big number of 744 operators "taking the up-grade" but it seems that only a few like LH and KE are following that logic...
The freighter version is apparently more successful...
Boeing anticpated it would be more warmly welcomed in the freighter version. As the lower than anticpated sales of the A-380 and 748i show, the market for this sized aircraft is smaller than it used to be. That plus the 777X, which will be a near direct 2 engine replacement for the 744 makes demand for the 748i weak. A 77W can perform most missions the 748i can for less $. The best market for the plane is those routes which require an aircraft larger than the 77W but smaller than the A380. Not many of those around I guess since there arent all that many orders. Once the 777X comes out the 748i is DOA anyway IMHO.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26717 posts, RR: 83 Reply 27, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 17372 times:
Quoting tonymctigue (Reply 25): In fact, I can see a situation where the biggest threat to the B748F project comes not from the A380F or any other freight aircraft but from the B744!
A number of folks have suggested that, but we're seeing freight operators retiring 747-400BCFs in favor of taking delivery of 747-8Fs. The 747-8F's economics appear to outweigh the higher capital costs and the 747-8F's economics will improve as GE improves the engines.
Quoting KDAYflyer (Reply 26): Boeing anticpated it would be more warmly welcomed in the freighter version.
Boeing has consistently predicted the passenger model would be the more popular one.
Yes, but its been through countless tweaks and 2 major upgrades.
The even more "ancient" 737 has also gone through myriad ongoing improvements and is now into its third generational iteration. What's more, against a much younger and very similar specs competitor, it is continuing to hold its own exceedingly well.
So, "old" basic design is a very minor (if at all} factor. Other reasons like niche market, and large ETOPS twins are much more valid.
LH707330 From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 181 posts, RR: 0 Reply 29, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 15233 times:
Does the 748i offer a significant CASM benefit over the 77W? I thought I read somewhere that they were pretty close, and therefore the only good 748i markets are ones where there's too much demand to fill a 77W.
zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7725 posts, RR: 73 Reply 30, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 14736 times:
Quoting Gonzalo (Thread starter): I would expected a big number of 744 operators "taking the up-grade" but it seems that only a few like LH and KE are following that logic...
Leeham.net also reported that the LH deal was in part compensation for the cancellation of Connexion by Boeing, and KE was in part offsets for 787 delays. KE also manufacture 747 parts, bit like GECAS buying GE powered aircraft to lease out.
[Edited 2012-08-17 13:08:47 by srbmod]
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
VC10er From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 2426 posts, RR: 9 Reply 31, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 14406 times:
There is the "sleeper" factor which today nobody can predict. Perhaps one day, people will look back and think "gosh, and nobody thought it would catch on" a hope for all of us 747 lovers to hold onto.
I recall the days of when average people having a computer at home was totally absurd. And that was the 1980's. Not a perfect analogy, but even the big industry experts can be very wrong about things...like Facebook stock!
But I do have a question for the experts here: if after some time Lufthansa and Korean report that their 747-8I's are performing better than expectation, the RASM proves great on certain routes, passengers fall in love, the economy turns around...might we then see some airlines take another look at the latest version of the "Queen of the skies"?
The world is missing love, let's use our flights to spread it!
Bongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3018 posts, RR: 2 Reply 32, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 13906 times:
Further to previosu comments the 748-I is underpinned by a 50 year old design. Tthere comes a time when this does matter, as it has an impact on what is possible, and it defines the basic size and shape of the fuselage. If you added eveything that is new on the 748-I to a 40 year newer basic design it would be likely to produce a better aircraft than the 748-I. The other factor is that even if it is a "new" aircraft, the perception to many is that its just the 2012 model of an old aircraft.
Off thread, the 737 will always have constraints compared to the newer A320. its narrower fuselage provides slightly less space, and its undercarriage restricts engine fan diameter. A newer basic design would overcome these constraints.
United_fan From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 7159 posts, RR: 8 Reply 33, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 13565 times:
I read that one of the reasons Boeing even came out with a passenger 748 is for a future Air Force 1.
[Edited 2012-08-17 10:42:30]
'Empathy was yesterday...Today, you're wasting my Mother-F'ing time' - Heat.
SWALUV From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 85 posts, RR: 0 Reply 34, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 13364 times:
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 15): live on for many years to come as a freighter. If Boeing did nothing to update the 744F, the economics of the 777F will likely kill it. Launching the 747-8 program was absolutely the right decision, in my view.
The 747 according to an interview which I can't remember the name of, stupid brain, anyway was originally designed for freighter but airlines wanted a passenger equivalent, so that's where we stand today! Pretty Interesting!
That is completely erroneous. Have you flown it? It is a derivative of the 747-100/200/300/400. Those aircraft have been quite successful. Well, OK, the 300 version did not seem like a running success.
BasilFawlty From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 1254 posts, RR: 1 Reply 36, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 11820 times:
Quoting Gonzalo (Thread starter): I would expected a big number of 744 operators "taking the up-grade" but it seems that only a few like LH and KE are following that logic...
The freighter version is apparently more successful...
Thoughts ?
A big number of 744 operators are indeed 'upgrading', to the 77W. The 748I was doomed to fail from day one because of the existence of the 77W. It could have been a success, if the 77W didn't exist (the same goes for the A345 and A346 by the way).
'Every year donkeys and mules kill more people than plane crashes'
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21488 posts, RR: 24 Reply 37, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 11831 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 2): Boeing is hopeful they will sell more, but then they pretty much have to be.
They have sold significantly more 748s (passenger and cargo combined) than some previous 747 versions that must have had fairly high development costs. Whether they were profitable or not I have no idea.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26717 posts, RR: 83 Reply 38, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 11669 times:
Quoting United_fan (Reply 35): I read that one of the reasons Boeing even came out with a passenger 748 is for a future Air Force 1.
Push comes to shove, Boeing probably could have turned a 747-8 freighter into a plane capable of serving as a Presidential Transport.
Quoting SWALUV (Reply 37): The 747 according to an interview which I can't remember the name of, stupid brain, anyway was originally designed for freighter but airlines wanted a passenger equivalent, so that's where we stand today! Pretty Interesting!
It's more that the plane's expected life as a passenger carrier was going to be very short due to the belief that intercontinental travel would be primarily handled by the SST. Since no airline wanted to buy such an expensive plane, operate it for a decade, then scrap it, Boeing designed it so that it could have a second life as a freighter once it was no longer needed as a passenger plane.
And this is exactly what has happened with the various 747 passenger-to-freighter conversions.
unityofsaints From Ireland, joined Nov 2011, 35 posts, RR: 0 Reply 39, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 11503 times:
Quoting brilondon (Reply 35): That is completely erroneous. Have you flown it? It is a derivative of the 747-100/200/300/400. Those aircraft have been quite successful. Well, OK, the 300 version did not seem like a running success.
My having flown it is completely irrelevant to this discussion and what it is or isn't a derivative of is also highly irrelevant. It may be a good plane to look at. Or to fly (as a pilot). Or to fly in (as a passenger). Or to work (as a mechanic or flight attendant).
It isn't a good plane in the one metric which counts: return on investment for the airlines. For that, you pick the 77W on the low end or the 388 on the high end. There's little grounds on which to dispute this and that's why the passenger version of this plane doesn't sell and won't sell in the future.
cosmofly From United States of America, joined May 2009, 648 posts, RR: 0 Reply 40, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 10392 times:
The 748i also keeps the A380 price honest, thus limiting A's profitability. The 748i seems to be successful in this respect and such pressure could actually help the future sale of "cheap" A380. I suspect Boeing would not complain when A continues to lose money on the A380 program.
The current world economy outlook is not helping near term where the 748i may find a niche with delivery slots. The mere talk of the 777X is enough to kill the 748i down the line. 77W is already giving the 748i a run and the 777X will only blow it away.
Greenpoint's Aeroloft seems to be working nicely for their BBJ customers. I wish Boeing may one day find the financial justification to add another 50 seats with creative OSU designs to make 748i competitive to 777X. Until then, Airforce one (foreign or domestic), or part of a compensation package for whatever, may be the best bet for the next 748i order.
The Queen is the best looking airliner in the sky.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26717 posts, RR: 83 Reply 41, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 10338 times:
Quoting cosmofly (Reply 40): The 748i also keeps the A380 price honest, thus limiting A's profitability.
The 748i seems to be successful in this respect and such pressure could actually help the future sale of "cheap" A380.
Considering Boeing has refused 747-8 RFPs due to the price being "too low", evidently Boeing is only willing to lower the price so much, so how "honest" it keeps Airbus. Not to mention even if Airbus sells the A380 "cheap", they have scores and scores of millions in high-profit ancillary sales so Airbus will be making money in the end.
Frankly, the idea that Boeing spent billions of dollars on a plane whose sole purpose is to try and cost Airbus millions of dollars on each A380 sale is ludicrous.
Quoting cosmofly (Reply 40): I wish Boeing may one day find the financial justification to add another 50 seats with creative OSU designs to make 748i competitive to 777X.
bongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3018 posts, RR: 2 Reply 42, posted (9 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 9739 times:
[quote=Stitch,reply=41]Frankly, the idea that Boeing spent billions of dollars on a plane whose sole purpose is to try and cost Airbus millions of dollars on each A380 sale is ludicrous.[/quote
Boeing shareholders would never stand for a multi billion dollar project whose only purpose was to try and get one over Airbus. Shareholders are interested in a return on their investment, not points scoring.
There was a news blurb in AW&ST this week mentioning that the Pentagon is preparing an RFP for the AF-1 replacement. When I read this, I too was thinking that a converted 748F airframe might be a better choice than the 748i for this application. The upper deck on the current AF-1 is a secure section where only the pilots and technical support personnel are allowed. I don't think the AF wants or needs the 748i's SUD.
CXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2183 posts, RR: 4 Reply 44, posted (9 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 9316 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
Quoting N62NA (Reply 24): At what point is what Boeing calls a 737 not really a 737? In other words, is the 737MAX sufficiently different from the 737-100 that it could really be called a new airplane, and for convenience/marketing reasons, Boeing is just still calling it a 737?
When it is an all new plane. And I think the measure of what is "all new" and what is not is whether one design is derived from another, or whether it started, figuratively speaking, from a "clean sheet of paper".
Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 32): Tthere comes a time when this does matter, as it has an impact on what is possible, and it defines the basic size and shape of the fuselage.
While this is true, in what way has the 747-8 been hindered by its design? The only thing that's holding back the 747-8 is the relatively small VLA market which is owned by the 777-300ER at one end and by the A380 at the other. The 747-8 uses less fuel per trip than the A380, and according to Lufthansa, the fuel burn per seat difference between the two is minimal - or will be once its 11th aircraft is delivered. It is intrinsically a very good aircraft for airlines that require something in the very near future between the 77W and the A380.
Quoting unityofsaints (Reply 39): It isn't a good plane in the one metric which counts: return on investment for the airlines. For that, you pick the 77W on the low end or the 388 on the high end. There's little grounds on which to dispute this and that's why the passenger version of this plane doesn't sell and won't sell in the future.
You better call up LH and KE and tell them they've made a mistake in ordering the 748i. There are also numerous airlines that have MoUs for 748is, so you better tell them to cancel those too
Thankfully, airlines don't make their purchasing decisions on such simplistic terms. Yes, it's true that for some airlines, they don't need the 748i to fill in the gap in capacity left between the A346/77W and the A380, but some others do. I doubt any airline would've placed an order for it without carefully weighing up its return on investment. It is a lot more fuel efficient aircraft than its predecessor, and can also carry more pax and cargo than both the 744 and the 77W. It also has more space for revenue cargo than the A380 when you take into account the number of pax bags.
As far as the return on investment for Boeing is concerned, Boeing in its wisdom decided that a firm order for 20 plus 20 options from LH is more than enough to launch the project. (As a derivitave instead of an all new aircraft, the development costs will be somewhat less than building an all new plane, and thus the break even point of the project would be lower than if Boeing had decided to design an all new aircraft instead).
There is a definite and clear case for the 747-8 project.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 41): Frankly, the idea that Boeing spent billions of dollars on a plane whose sole purpose is to try and cost Airbus millions of dollars on each A380 sale is ludicrous.
I don't think that was the 747-8 program's sole purpose ...
Undoubtedly, the 747-8 would cost Boeing less to produce than the A380 cost Airbus. Even if the 747-8 is outsold by the A380, it could still end up being the more profitable of the two programs. The goal is to make more profit on the 747-8 than Airbus makes on the A380. If the existence of the 747-8 made airlines purchase it instead of more A380s, then it's done its job.
Cerecl From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 648 posts, RR: 0 Reply 45, posted (9 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 9257 times:
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 44): The 747-8 uses less fuel per trip than the A380, and according to Lufthansa, the fuel burn per seat difference between the two is minimal - or will be once its 11th aircraft is delivered
According to this LAXDESI's estimation the revenue advantage to A380 is in the range of tens of millions annually. Lufthansa 747-8 Fuel Burn (by trex8 Jun 19 2012 in Tech Ops)
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 44): It is intrinsically a very good aircraft for airlines that require something in the very near future between the 77W and the A380.
That's the problem. Not many airlines have this requirement. Even if they do, they might just use 77W or A380 anyway with 77X on the horizon.
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 44): There are also numerous airlines that have MoUs for 748is,
I am not sure "numerous" is the right word, a few maybe.
Of those, only Air China and Transaero's MOUs are reasonably solid. HX/HU's 15 is on extremely shaky grounds. There are also persistent rumours that CA is seeking to rent a 380 or two from CZ...
Gonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1675 posts, RR: 0 Reply 46, posted (9 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 9243 times:
With all due respect, honestly I don't understand the way of thinking of those who claims that the 748 and 737MAX are "old" designs from the '60's. The only things in common of this planes with their "ancestors" are the names and some ( almost "symbolic" ? ) shapes in the forward section of the fuselage. Almost everything else has been redesigned looking for fuel efficiency, interior space, and a long etcetera. With such radical changes being not enough for you, and taking in account that almost every aircraft designed for passenger and cargo has the same basic fuselage+arrow wing configuration, I guess the only way to see you giving a new design the approval as "NEW" will be with a BWB ( which is not new in the military industry ) or a SST ( which will be probably similar to a Concorde in some of its lines anyway ).
In terms of technology, performance, comfort and such, both the 748 and the 737MAX have much, much more in common with "clean sheet" planes like the 787 or the A350 compared with the things that can have in common with 741's or 731's.
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10468 posts, RR: 20 Reply 47, posted (9 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 9052 times:
Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 19): Boeing will have talked to major airlines before they launched the 748-I and asked who was interested, either the airlines said "you make it and we'll buy it" whilst having little intention to do so, or the airlines said "not interested" and Boeing didn't listen.
Clearly Boeing did not go forward with the -8i till they had the LH order in hand. Beyond that, I think it was clear that Boeing was presuming they'd win at least some business from BA who has a large fleet of 744s, but that now seems about as likely as Kingfisher taking their A380s. They also may have felt they had a shot at some of the other traditional 747 customers, but it seems there was some wishful thinking there.
Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 19):
To my mind the fundamental problem is that its underpinned by a design from the mid 60's Of course a lot of it is new, but its still constrained by parts of the original design, and an airline looking for a plane to last the next 25 years may well think that basing it on an ancient design to start with is not a good idea.
When does the A320 become too ancient to consider? Seems Airbus is giving it a go with new winglets and new engines and various other tweaks. Where have I heard that before?
Quoting BasilFawlty (Reply 36): A big number of 744 operators are indeed 'upgrading', to the 77W. The 748I was doomed to fail from day one because of the existence of the 77W. It could have been a success, if the 77W didn't exist (the same goes for the A345 and A346 by the way).
I agree.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 41):
Considering Boeing has refused 747-8 RFPs due to the price being "too low", evidently Boeing is only willing to lower the price so much, so how "honest" it keeps Airbus. Not to mention even if Airbus sells the A380 "cheap", they have scores and scores of millions in high-profit ancillary sales so Airbus will be making money in the end.
Right, but Boeing gets the same kind of side sales, so it's not something that would tilt the balance.
Quoting FLALEFTY (Reply 43):
There was a news blurb in AW&ST this week mentioning that the Pentagon is preparing an RFP for the AF-1 replacement. When I read this, I too was thinking that a converted 748F airframe might be a better choice than the 748i for this application. The upper deck on the current AF-1 is a secure section where only the pilots and technical support personnel are allowed. I don't think the AF wants or needs the 748i's SUD.
The thread in MilAv forum says the current AF1 has equipment in every spare nook and cranny, so I imagine the extra space will find a use.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26717 posts, RR: 83 Reply 48, posted (9 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 9051 times:
Quoting Revelation (Reply 47): Right, but Boeing gets the same kind of side sales, so it's not something that would tilt the balance.
True, but the sense I get from these posters is that Boeing never really expected to sell any 747-8s, but just that the model's existence was enough to deny Airbus revenue because an airline would order the A380, anyway, but by first getting a "low-ball" price from Boeing on a 747-8 RFP, they could then force Airbus to match or beat it.
Now, to be fair, a form of that strategy did work for IB with their A340-600 order, but Airbus and Boeing started looking out for it...
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11708 posts, RR: 52 Reply 49, posted (9 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 8778 times:
Quoting SWALUV (Reply 34): Quoting CXB77L (Reply 15):live on for many years to come as a freighter. If Boeing did nothing to update the 744F, the economics of the 777F will likely kill it. Launching the 747-8 program was absolutely the right decision, in my view.
The 747 according to an interview which I can't remember the name of, stupid brain, anyway was originally designed for freighter but airlines wanted a passenger equivalent, so that's where we stand today! Pretty Interesting!
The B-747-8F, B-777F, and B-767F do different missions and complament each other. Many freight have, or will operate two of the three Boeing freighters side by side. That is why sales of the A-330F are in the toliet.
No, the original B-747 was a passenger design from the start (via the PA order), although it did share some featuers of the Boeing proposed CX-HLS USAF program that lead to the C-5A. The Boeing CX-HLS proposal had a wider fuselarge and front and rear cargo loading doors for 'drive through loading', it also sat much closer to the ground. But when the B-747 was designed it was a passenger airplane that could also be produced as a freighter.
Quoting unityofsaints (Reply 39): It isn't a good plane in the one metric which counts: return on investment for the airlines. For that, you pick the 77W on the low end or the 388 on the high end.
It seems LH disagrees with you.
Quoting unityofsaints (Reply 39): There's little grounds on which to dispute this and that's why the passenger version of this plane doesn't sell and won't sell in the future.
You may have noticed neither VLA is making any sales records these days. Boeing may surprise you in the future.
cosmofly From United States of America, joined May 2009, 648 posts, RR: 0 Reply 50, posted (9 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 8692 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 41): Frankly, the idea that Boeing spent billions of dollars on a plane whose sole purpose is to try and cost Airbus millions of dollars on each A380 sale is ludicrous.
Of course B did not launch a biz case to simply deny A profit. Now that the R&D has been sunk, a different biz case can be devised. B does not have to lose money forward by "low ball" the 748i price, but still can target healthy cash flow which would automatically put a lot of price pressure on A. I am sure B will fight very hard for every biz opportunity.
In the end, IMHO, most airlines will buy A380 when they need VLAs. The 748i as is is simply not competitive. For the ones that are on the border line of needing VLAs, they can afford to wait for the 777X or A38x and shoulder on longer with 77W, as in the case of CX.
jfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 7348 posts, RR: 7 Reply 52, posted (9 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 8621 times:
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 37): They have sold significantly more 748s (passenger and cargo combined) than some previous 747 versions that must have had fairly high development costs. Whether they were profitable or not I have no idea.
The 743's poor sales were because the 747-200B was still being sold and flew longer distances, the upper deck was a novelty. The Asian 747 operators purchased it: JAL, Korean, Qantas, Cathay and Singapore Airlines all bought the 743.
The SP was a Pan AM thing and people love to say how " poor" the sales were, but the Reasearch and Development helped future 747 including the 744.
The 748 has slow sales because the world is in recession, many airlines bigger then a 777 or A340-600 find the A380 just to big. Could you imagine SAA or LAN buying A380's ? To big for them, the 748 may be "bigger" enough but not too big.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26717 posts, RR: 83 Reply 53, posted (9 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 8607 times:
Quoting BasilFawlty (Reply 51): Sooner or later when the fuel becomes more and more expensive I think that LH will regret their choice.
Why? Once GE gets the GEnx-1B engine squared away, the 747-8 will be quite fuel efficient on a payload-tonne basis. Even with the engines as they are, the plane is still better than the 747-400 on a payload-tonne basis per reports of the freighter operators, and I don't see any reason why that advantage would not extend to the passenger model.
unityofsaints From Ireland, joined Nov 2011, 35 posts, RR: 0 Reply 54, posted (9 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 8625 times:
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 44): You better call up LH and KE and tell them they've made a mistake in ordering the 748i. There are also numerous airlines that have MoUs for 748is, so you better tell them to cancel those too
The KE order is for a grand total of 5 planes. Don't take anything LH does too seriously, they're also the only airline in the world to have a significant A343 / 346 fleet, look at how smart of an idea that was! What 'numerous' MOUs are you talking about? There's Air China for 5, Air Arik for 2... and that seems to be more or less it.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21488 posts, RR: 24 Reply 55, posted (9 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 8386 times:
Quoting unityofsaints (Reply 54): Don't take anything LH does too seriously, they're also the only airline in the world to have a significant A343 / 346 fleet
What do you consider "significant"? I believe IB has 34 A340s in service, 17 343s and 17 346s.
2175301 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 982 posts, RR: 0 Reply 56, posted (9 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 8342 times:
Quoting Cerecl (Reply 45):
According to this LAXDESI's estimation the revenue advantage to A380 is in the range of tens of millions annually.
Lufthansa 747-8 Fuel Burn (by trex8 Jun 19 2012 in Tech Ops)
I believe that analysis is dependent on having enough passengers and cargo to fill the A380. If you cannot routinely fill an A380; but can fill a 748I then the 748I has the advantage. However, I do admit that the number of routes that can effectively use a 748I and not an A380 is limited.
KDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 155 posts, RR: 0 Reply 57, posted (9 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 8191 times:
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 44): The 747-8 uses less fuel per trip than the A380, and according to Lufthansa, the fuel burn per seat difference between the two is minimal - or will be once its 11th aircraft is delivered. It is intrinsically a very good aircraft for airlines that require something in the very near future between the 77W and the A380.
Well, thats certainly good news. How much fuel does it use compared to a 777?
unityofsaints From Ireland, joined Nov 2011, 35 posts, RR: 0 Reply 60, posted (9 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 7912 times:
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 55): What do you consider "significant"? I believe IB has 34 A340s in service, 17 343s and 17 346s.
Forgot about Iberia but they are a special case, hot & high airport and politically motivated to only fly Airbus because of the jobs they provide for the country.
columba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 6798 posts, RR: 5 Reply 61, posted (9 months 1 week ago) and read 7747 times:
Quoting unityofsaints (Reply 54): Don't take anything LH does too seriously, they're also the only airline in the world to have a significant A343 / 346 fleet, look at how smart of an idea that was!
Over the last few years LH was one of the most profitable airlines in the world, guess the idea was indeed very smart. The financial problems they are dealing now have nothing to do with their fleet of A343s and A346s.
LH knows their numbers, they evaluated the 777-300ER twice, once when it came to a top up order for A346s and the second time when they decided in favor for the 747-8I.
[Edited 2012-08-19 01:08:36]
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
I have mentioned in his various threads that airlines do not evaluate aircraft at 100 % load factors for either freight or passengers. It is a flawed assumption to start with. 75-85% would be more realistic, that would represent statistical seasonal loads.
When many people compare aircraft, they often skew load factors, not just on here, the OEMs do it a well.
spink From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 148 posts, RR: 0 Reply 64, posted (9 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 7461 times:
Quoting Cerecl (Reply 59): I think the analysis was based on 70% LF, happy to be proven wrong.
It was 70% LF on the differential which works out to 93% total load factor for the 380 or ~100 additional paid economy seats. The way LH has the 748 and 380 configured, the difference is 158 economy seats and 6 biz seats. With that large of margin, there certainly are going to be routes where the 748 has a clear advantage over the 380.
Quote: Spohr says that fuel flow on the 747-8 is "more than 10%" lower than the 747-400 at the same weight, and its efficiency is close to the much larger A380 in Lufthansa's fleet, in seat/mile cost terms: "We believe we will get very close - not quite [equal] - to the A380."
While he didn't specify what he meant by "very close", it's fair to assume he doesn't mean tens of millions of dollars per annum.
Quoting Cerecl (Reply 45): That's the problem. Not many airlines have this requirement. Even if they do, they might just use 77W or A380 anyway with 77X on the horizon.
I agree that when the 777-9X arrives, the 747-8 Intercontinental is as good as dead. But the 777-9X isn't due until 2019, which is why I said that airlines which require something between the 77W and A380 right now can order the 747-8. There are also airlines that, for whatever reason, require quads rather than twins, but don't need something as big as an A380. With the demise of the A340, the smallest new quad engined widebody airlines can buy is the 747-8.
I also agree that the 777-300ER and the A380 pretty much fulfils most airlines' needs as far as large widebody long range aircraft is concerned. But that doesn't make the 747-8 a bad aircraft, or a vanity project, or one that is hindered by its 1960s origins, as has been suggested by others here. For airlines that need the 747-8's capabilities but can't wait for the 777-9X, it is a very good aircraft.
Of course, armchair experts always know better than the airlines, right?
Quoting unityofsaints (Reply 54): What 'numerous' MOUs are you talking about? There's Air China for 5, Air Arik for 2... and that seems to be more or less it.
Arik Air's order for 2 is firm.
HX has an MoU for 15.
CA has an MoU for 5.
LH has an option for 20 on top of the current 20 firm.
So, in addition to the 36 firm orders for the 747-8 Intercontinental, there's potentially 40 more sales.
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10468 posts, RR: 20 Reply 67, posted (9 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 7248 times:
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 65): There are also airlines that, for whatever reason, require quads rather than twins, but don't need something as big as an A380.
Which, along with the obvious "Buy American" push, will mean that the USAF will be taking three for its presidential fleet. While a sale of 3 is not a huge deal, Boeing will make a lot of profit on those three frames, and it'll be one more reason that Boeing will be supporting the -8 for decades to come.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26717 posts, RR: 83 Reply 68, posted (9 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 7229 times:
Quoting Amsterdam (Reply 66): KLM will place a large order if the FAA allows combi's.
The FAA and JAA (Europe's version of the FAA) do allow combination aircraft. However, the new rules and requirements do not allow an operator to adjust the amount of space dedicated to passengers and revenue cargo to reflect changing load factors for each. So unless your passenger and cargo loads are always within a very narrow range, there will be times when you are leaving passengers or cargo behind due to lack of space, as well as flying empty seats and pallet positions due to lack of demand.
zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7725 posts, RR: 73 Reply 69, posted (9 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 6964 times:
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 65): No offence, but I'd rather take LH's word for it as they operate both types, and therefore know what they're talking about:
I hope you noticed they qualified that with the comment with "at the same weight", the 747-8i has around 70,000 lb higher brochure OEW over the 744. So to compare the two aircraft "at the same weight" you are looking at a 70,000 lb or so payload differance.
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 3594 posts, RR: 36 Reply 71, posted (9 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 6582 times:
Quoting unityofsaints (Reply 54): Don't take anything LH does too seriously, they're also the only airline in the world to have a significant A343 / 346 fleet, look at how smart of an idea that was!
Well, their quite positive long-term operating results over the last 10 years speak for themselves. .
Quoting columba (Reply 61): Over the last few years LH was one of the most profitable airlines in the world, guess the idea was indeed very smart. The financial problems they are dealing now have nothing to do with their fleet of A343s and A346s.
Indeed, and they are still making a profit. Though due to the several financial crisis's Europe is going through, also LH's results are curently under pressure. With a B77W fleet that pressure on the total LH business might have been 0,000001% less, but nobody cares about that.
Quoting Amsterdam (Reply 66): KLM will place a large order if the FAA allows combi's.
I doubt KLM will place any order soon for any plane. The financial situation at AF-KLM is far from good. Also KLM is now showing red numbers, AF has been showing these for quite a while now.
As soon as they get the engine deal negotiated with Rolls-Royce AF-KLM will confirm their A350-orders. But they will leave it at that for time being. And even if they were doing great, I believe the days of Combi's the way they are operate by KLM are over. And will imho never return.
As to why the B748i does not sell very well; we all know the world economy is not in a rosy position. This has an effect on many business, not in the is it affecting the aviation business. Maybe in 5 years the picture may look quite different from today, and hopefully very positive. But for now we do not have to expect many orders for products in the VLA market where the B748i is targeting potential customers.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21488 posts, RR: 24 Reply 72, posted (9 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 6574 times:
Quoting Max Q (Reply 70): It just shows what a great, visionary design the original B747 was.
The designers built in incredible growth capability.
Consider just the maximum take off weight which has grown from 700,000 to 975,000 pounds.
In percentage terms that's about 39%. The MTOW of the 737-900ER is roughly 90% greater than the original 737-100 (from about 100,000 to. 188,000 lbs) and the MAX will no doubt be heavier still.
Rockinflyer From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 232 posts, RR: 0 Reply 73, posted (9 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 6490 times:
Quoting RobK (Reply 1): The 773ER can do most of what the 748I can do and it's cheaper to buy and operate. No brainer. Also may I suggest you do a search for old discussions of this topic. It crops up on a near-monthly basis and has been discussed to death. Thanks.
Oh just put up with it. Gosh! Ignore it if you're tired of it.
Amsterdam From Netherlands, joined Mar 2011, 69 posts, RR: 0 Reply 74, posted (9 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 6406 times:
I don't believe KLM is losing money.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 68): Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 24332 posts, RR: 80
Reply 68, posted Sun Aug 19 2012 16:19:10 your local time (9 hours 4 minutes 42 secs ago) and read 834 times:
Quoting Amsterdam (Reply 66):
KLM will place a large order if the FAA allows combi's.
The FAA and JAA (Europe's version of the FAA) do allow combination aircraft. However, the new rules and requirements do not allow an operator to adjust the amount of space dedicated to passengers and revenue cargo to reflect changing load factors for each. So unless your passenger and cargo loads are always within a very narrow range, there will be times when you are leaving passengers or cargo behind due to lack of space, as well as flying empty seats and pallet positions due to lack of demand
I think you're right.
I should have said that KLM can't get new 74's the way the would want them, yet.
Amsterdam From Netherlands, joined Mar 2011, 69 posts, RR: 0 Reply 76, posted (9 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 6316 times:
I am still not convinced.
The management of KLM is deliberately negative to keep the pressure on the unions.
The load factors are high and ticket prices are not lower than last year.
Flyingsottsman From Australia, joined Oct 2010, 396 posts, RR: 0 Reply 77, posted (9 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 5998 times:
I am woundering if we are seeing history repeat itself here, ie the DC10 MD11, the DC-10-30 was a work horse for many airlines and as time went on a much newer and more upgraded version of the DC 10 came out in the guise of the MD 11 however it seemed to sell better as a frieghter rather than a pasenger jet, I think this time Boeing will be up against it with the A380 and A330 from airbus and even from their own product with the 777s and the 787. To me I think that the 7478i will sell better as a freighter but I also think that a lot of airlines to will be waiting to see how this lastest verson of the 747 will go with LH and KE. I hate to think it but I think this will be the last version of this wounderful aircraft a true Queen of the Sky but lets also hope orders will pick up for the 7478i and the mighty jumbo jet keeps flying.
Burkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4248 posts, RR: 2 Reply 78, posted (9 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 5914 times:
Quoting LH707330 (Reply 29): Does the 748i offer a significant CASM benefit over the 77W? I thought I read somewhere that they were pretty close, and therefore the only good 748i markets are ones where there's too much demand to fill a 77W.
If we believe in those numbers that come from operators and not marketing, the A388 beats the 77W by 19%, and the 748I is near to the 77W, so we can say for sure that the 748I beats the 77W in efficiency by around 15%.
Quoting BasilFawlty (Reply 51): Sooner or later when the fuel becomes more and more expensive I think that LH will regret their choice.
Why on earth? If fuel goes up further, the most fuel efficent planes will help their owners to survive, and these are the A380 and the B748I. Airlines who downgraded to the less efficient 77W will not be able to compete and have to leave the main routes.
PC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2238 posts, RR: 5 Reply 79, posted (9 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 5838 times:
Quoting FLALEFTY (Reply 43): When I read this, I too was thinking that a converted 748F airframe might be a better choice than the 748i for this application. The upper deck on the current AF-1 is a secure section where only the pilots and technical support personnel are allowed. I don't think the AF wants or needs the 748i's SUD.
Respectfully disagree. It is the flying White House. They will find a use for the extra space. They probably wish the current AF1 was based on the -400 platform if it wasn't for the timing of it.
Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
Cerecl From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 648 posts, RR: 0 Reply 80, posted (9 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 5716 times:
Quoting spink (Reply 64): It was 70% LF on the differential which works out to 93% total load factor for the 380 or ~100 additional paid economy seats. The way LH has the 748 and 380 configured, the difference is 158 economy seats and 6 biz seats. With that large of margin, there certainly are going to be routes where the 748 has a clear advantage over the 380.
Thanks. I think LAXDESI assumed a lower seat differential though.
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 65): No offence, but I'd rather take LH's word for it as they operate both types, and therefore know what they're talking about:
None taken.
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 65): While he didn't specify what he meant by "very close", it's fair to assume he doesn't mean tens of millions of dollars per annum.
He talked about fuel burn/cost not revenue potential. As you know these two are not the same.
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 65): I also agree that the 777-300ER and the A380 pretty much fulfils most airlines' needs as far as large widebody long range aircraft is concerned. But that doesn't make the 747-8 a bad aircraft, or a vanity project, or one that is hindered by its 1960s origins, as has been suggested by others here. For airlines that need the 747-8's capabilities but can't wait for the 777-9X, it is a very good aircraft.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26717 posts, RR: 83 Reply 81, posted (9 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 5659 times:
Quoting Flyingsottsman (Reply 77): I am woundering if we are seeing history repeat itself here, ie the DC10 MD11, the DC-10-30 was a work horse for many airlines and as time went on a much newer and more upgraded version of the DC 10 came out in the guise of the MD 11 however it seemed to sell better as a frieghter rather than a pasenger jet...
Not a bad observation.
At EIS, the MD-11 failed to meet it's targets for range and fuel burn, which has been the case for the 747-8. And just as McD introduced a Performance Improvement Package for the MD-11 to get it back to spec, so is Boeing doing so with the 747-8.
Competition fron the 767-400ER, 777-200(ER), A330-300 and A340-300 effectively ended the market for the passenger model for the MD-11, so the final frames delivered were freighters. The 747-8 is not doing well against the 777-300ER and A380-800 and the 777-9X and A350-1000 won't be doing it any favors, either, so chances are that the 747-8 will also eventually just be built as a freighter.
Quoting Amsterdam (Reply 76): The management of KLM is deliberately negative to keep the pressure on the unions.
No, they are a listed company. To do so is fraudulent and punishable by law.
Quoting Amsterdam (Reply 76): The load factors are high and ticket prices are not lower than last year.
That does not mean much at all in the total picture of costs and profitability of KLM as part of AF-KLM.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 81): The 747-8 is not doing well against the 777-300ER and A380-800 and the 777-9X and A350-1000 won't be doing it any favors, either, so chances are that the 747-8 will also eventually just be built as a freighter.
Which is where the airframe is at it best compared to any competitor imho. Still hope that the B748 will do well. The base shape of the B747 and 4 engines are very much pleasing the eye, especially in this era of the boring twins.
135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 357 posts, RR: 2 Reply 83, posted (9 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 5533 times:
Quoting BasilFawlty (Reply 51): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 49):
It seems LH disagrees with you.
Sooner or later when the fuel becomes more and more expensive I think that LH will regret their choice.
Since LH has both aircraft, I doubt they will regret anything. They can use each acft for their respective needs and make money using both. As the 748i wingspan is still in the lower category and not requiring the "added" clearances, they can successfully use them where they use their current 744's but fill it with more people/cargo for those routes. For the trips that need that much more people they have the option of routing the 388. It seems a very wise option for them.
Quoting jfk777 (Reply 52): The 748 has slow sales because the world is in recession, many airlines bigger then a 777 or A340-600 find the A380 just to big. Could you imagine SAA or LAN buying A380's ? To big for them, the 748 may be "bigger" enough but not too big.
As many other people have pointed out...this is true, the world economy is a massive driving factor to all of this.
CXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2183 posts, RR: 4 Reply 85, posted (9 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 4902 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
Quoting Burkhard (Reply 78): Why on earth? If fuel goes up further, the most fuel efficent planes will help their owners to survive, and these are the A380 and the B748I. Airlines who downgraded to the less efficient 77W will not be able to compete and have to leave the main routes.
Less efficient?
The 77W is the most efficient aircraft in its class. It consumes significantly less fuel per trip than either the 748i or the A380.
Not every airline needs aircraft the size of the 748i or the A380.
Quoting Cerecl (Reply 80): He talked about fuel burn/cost not revenue potential. As you know these two are not the same.
You're right, as far as I know they are not the same. In my earlier post I talked about the 748i's fuel burn per seat against the A380, stating that there is very little difference - or in Spohr's words, "very close", but your reply spoke of revenue:
Quoting Cerecl (Reply 45): Quoting CXB77L (Reply 44): The 747-8 uses less fuel per trip than the A380, and according to Lufthansa, the fuel burn per seat difference between the two is minimal - or will be once its 11th aircraft is delivered
According to this LAXDESI's estimation the revenue advantage to A380 is in the range of tens of millions annually.
Lufthansa 747-8 Fuel Burn (by trex8 Jun 19 2012 in Tech Ops)
So maybe I did get a little confused.
Nevertheless, LH has said before that fuel accounts for about 40% of operating costs. LAXDESI's analysis considered only fuel costs and revenue from cargo and passengers, while other operating costs have seemingly not been taken into account, nor the effect the greater number of passenger bags will have on the revenue cargo that the A380 can carry.
The "tens of millions annually" figure is grossly exaggerated.
ricknroll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 480 posts, RR: 0 Reply 86, posted (9 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4819 times:
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 85): The 77W is the most efficient aircraft in its class. It consumes significantly less fuel per trip than either the 748i or the A380.
777way From Pakistan, joined Dec 2005, 5188 posts, RR: 4 Reply 87, posted (9 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4773 times:
Even though it may be the wrong type for some airlines I would have imagined thorough US influence Boeing might have been able to convince/sell some to places like Pakistan and a few others who are in favour with the US right now, but it seems all of such countries have woken upto the reality of not buying stuff for prestige over practicality.
zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7725 posts, RR: 73 Reply 89, posted (9 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4714 times:
Quoting 135mech (Reply 83): As the 748i wingspan is still in the lower category and not requiring the "added" clearances, they can successfully use them where they use their current 744's but fill it with more people/cargo for those routes.
No, the 747-8I is code F.
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 85): The 77W is the most efficient aircraft in its class. It consumes significantly less fuel per trip than either the 748i or the A380.
And the 737 burns less than a 77W, see the trend ? on a per seat basis, if flown with the same seat density, the A380 should have the lowest per seat burn.
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 85):
Not every airline needs aircraft the size of the 748i or the A380.
And lots of airlines flying around with nothing bigger than a 737, A320, Dash 8, that is due to the ROUTE being served. It is the ROUTE (i.e. the market) that determines if the capacity is justified, not the airline.
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 85):
Nevertheless, LH has said before that fuel accounts for about 40% of operating costs.
Long haul widebodies would be more like 60%, that sounds like an average number across the group, regional flights are more like 30% of DOC beng fuel.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
unityofsaints From Ireland, joined Nov 2011, 35 posts, RR: 0 Reply 91, posted (9 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 4578 times:
Quoting columba (Reply 61): Over the last few years LH was one of the most profitable airlines in the world, guess the idea was indeed very smart.
[quote=EPA001,reply=71]Well, their quite positive long-term operating results over the last 10 years speak for themselves. .
Correlation does not imply causation. LH's results could very well have looked better without the A340 orders.
Quoting columba (Reply 61): The financial problems they are dealing now have nothing to do with their fleet of A343s and A346s.
I never said that.
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 65): Arik Air's order for 2 is firm.
HX has an MoU for 15.
CA has an MoU for 5.
LH has an option for 20 on top of the current 20 firm.
So, in addition to the 36 firm orders for the 747-8 Intercontinental, there's potentially 40 more sales.
And people complain that the A380s orderbook is small at ~180 is small. Thirty-six orders is like background noise in an expanding airline market such as this one.
Cerecl From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 648 posts, RR: 0 Reply 92, posted (9 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 4481 times:
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 85): The "tens of millions annually" figure is grossly exaggerated.
I suggest that neither you nor I can be sure of that. I certainly understand 747-8i can do a job for some airlines. However, despite better availability and recent trouble to A380 program. 747-8i's sales remain poor. 747-8i's window of opportunity is closing and the record 77W sales last year is only making 747-8i prospect even more bleak. I am starting to wonder about CA's order of 5. There is fresh rumour today that CA is seeking to jointly operate (not necessarily code-share) A380 on the PEK-CDG route with CZ.
workhorse From France, joined Jul 2005, 211 posts, RR: 0 Reply 93, posted (9 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 4185 times:
In other times, I would find it difficult to believe that the 748's per trip fuel burn, as Zeke says, is just about the same as the 744's (what, after ~25 years???), but LH's cautious language ("at the same weight"...), is quite troubling and points into this very direction...
If this is indeed the case, no wonder they have hard time to sell 748i's. Airlines all over the world get rid of the 744, because it burns so much more fuel then the 77W, while seating just a little bit more passengers and taking much less cargo. The 748 takes some more passengers (but still less then the 388, and without the 388's "WOW factor") and still much less cargo then the 77W. If it burns the same amount of fuel then the 744, "cautious" airlines will rather prefer to play it safe and buy a 77W, and "bold" ones will go straight to the 388.
...Which is really a pity: as much as I prefer the looks of the 744 over the 748, I still definitely prefer the 748 over the 77W!
KarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 1785 posts, RR: 6 Reply 94, posted (9 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 4150 times:
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 65): Arik Air's order for 2 is firm.
HX has an MoU for 15.
CA has an MoU for 5.
LH has an option for 20 on top of the current 20 firm.
So, in addition to the 36 firm orders for the 747-8 Intercontinental, there's potentially 40 more sales.
With al the recent news about freezing the fleet expansion plans and the possibility for an 'all Airbus' fleet I'm not sure if Hong Kong Airlines is ever going to firm those 748's.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26717 posts, RR: 83 Reply 95, posted (9 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 4107 times:
Quoting workhorse (Reply 93): In other times, I would find it difficult to believe that the 748's per trip fuel burn, as Zeke says, is just about the same as the 744's (what, after ~25 years???), but LH's cautious language ("at the same weight"...), is quite troubling and points into this very direction...
Except nobody should be flying a 747-8 at the same payload weight as a 747-400. If you carry more payload weight with the same trip fuel, your fuel burn per payload ton will be lower.
LH have published the fuel consumption figures per passenger per 100 kilometers for both the 747-8 and 747-400. The 747-8 has 5% more passengers, but burns 10% less fuel per passenger per 100km - 3.8L vs. 4.2L. When LH was considering higher passenger counts (~390 and ~420), the fuel burn per passenger per 100km was even better - at 405 passengers, it was within a 10th of a liter of the A380-800 at 549 passengers.
N14AZ From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2313 posts, RR: 25 Reply 96, posted (9 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 4021 times:
Quoting workhorse (Reply 93): If this is indeed the case, no wonder they have hard time to sell 748i's. Airlines all over the world get rid of the 744, because it burns so much more fuel then the 77W, while seating just a little bit more passengers and taking much less cargo. The 748 takes some more passengers (but still less then the 388, and without the 388's "WOW factor") and still much less cargo then the 77W. If it burns the same amount of fuel then the 744, "cautious" airlines will rather prefer to play it safe and buy a 77W
Does anybody know how Boeing coordinates the sales team of the 777 and the 748? I could imagine there is a conflict of interest as soon as if Boeing receives a RFP for the 748i.
workhorse From France, joined Jul 2005, 211 posts, RR: 0 Reply 97, posted (9 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3967 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 95): LH have published the fuel consumption figures per passenger per 100 kilometers for both the 747-8 and 747-400. The 747-8 has 5% more passengers, but burns 10% less fuel per passenger per 100km - 3.8L vs. 4.2L.
OK, then it means it burns about 5% less per trip (344 pax in LH's 744, 362 pax in 748). Better than what has been been said, but still makes understandable airlines' tendency to go 77W instead.
workhorse From France, joined Jul 2005, 211 posts, RR: 0 Reply 98, posted (9 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3958 times:
Quoting N14AZ (Reply 96): Does anybody know how Boeing coordinates the sales team of the 777 and the 748? I could imagine there is a conflict of interest as soon as if Boeing receives a RFP for the 748i.
Would not be their first time, haven't they not had the same situation with the 717 vs the 737?
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26717 posts, RR: 83 Reply 99, posted (9 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3911 times:
Quoting N14AZ (Reply 96): Does anybody know how Boeing coordinates the sales team of the 777 and the 748?
Quoting workhorse (Reply 97): OK, then it means it burns about 5% less per trip (344 pax in LH's 744, 362 pax in 748). Better than what has been been said, but still makes understandable airlines' tendency to go 77W instead.
I really don't think fuel burn is what is hurting the 747-8. It definitely killed the 747-400, so Boeing had to know going in they needed to comprehensively address it and I believe they did so by increasing the payload weight, zero fuel weight and takeoff weight to allow the plane to lift more.
747 programme manager Elizabeth Lund noted that because the seat-mile costs between the 747-8 and 777-300ER are close (at least once the 747-8 is at spec), they focus on the extra revenue-generating capabilities of the 747-8 thanks to the greater number of seats you can put into it.
When you look at LH, they actually have less Economy seats in the 362-seat 747-8 then the 345-seat 747-400: 262 to 279. However, that configuration has 26 more Business Class seats and those new style of seats take up more room on the main deck then the older ones (being 2+2+2 vs. 2+3+2).
( Is LH using a narrower seat for the A330-300? I would think they could not fit the 747-8 seat in 2+2+2. )
I think what hurts the 747-8 is supply and demand. With the 777-300ER, you can restrict supply and increase the average sales price of each seat. With the A380-800, you can meet that supply at a lower ASP, but the A380-800 is so economic that it makes plenty of money with those seats filled at lower ASPs.
CXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2183 posts, RR: 4 Reply 101, posted (9 months 4 days ago) and read 3390 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
Quoting Cerecl (Reply 92): I suggest that neither you nor I can be sure of that.
Granted. But there are two areas of operating costs I can think of that will be higher on the A380 than on the 747-8: landing fees, as they are calculated based on the MTOW of the aircraft (as far as I'm aware); and crew salary. I'm sure there are other operating costs that I have not taken into account.
I don't think looking simply at fuel burn and revenue from cargo and passengers gives the full picture as to an aircraft's profitability for a particular airline.
Quoting workhorse (Reply 93): I would find it difficult to believe that the 748's per trip fuel burn, as Zeke says, is just about the same as the 744's (what, after ~25 years???),
Except that the 747-8 is the larger, heavier aircraft and can carry more passengers and cargo than the 744, thus reducing its per seat/per ton consumption figures.
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 94): With al the recent news about freezing the fleet expansion plans and the possibility for an 'all Airbus' fleet I'm not sure if Hong Kong Airlines is ever going to firm those 748's.
I'm not sure where you heard the 'all Airbus' fleet from, but I agree that it is unlikely HX in its current state will firm up those 748i orders. As for whether it will happen in future, however, who knows ...
workhorse From France, joined Jul 2005, 211 posts, RR: 0 Reply 102, posted (9 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 3305 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 99): I think what hurts the 747-8 is supply and demand. With the 777-300ER, you can restrict supply and increase the average sales price of each seat.
Can you really do that in a competitive market? Let's say, you have a route where you and your competitor both fly 744's. If you replace your 744 with a 77W, wouldn't your competitor just deploy a 388 and have your passengers?
zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7725 posts, RR: 73 Reply 103, posted (9 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3102 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 95): Except nobody should be flying a 747-8 at the same payload weight as a 747-400. If you carry more payload weight with the same trip fuel, your fuel burn per payload ton will be lower.
Lufthansa (Spohr) in the FG article linked above in reply 65 did not say same payload weight, they said same weight. The 747-8i is around 70,000 lb heavier according to Boeing brochure numbers. That comparison therefore is being done with less payload in the 747-8i, not more as you are suggesting.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 95): LH have published the fuel consumption figures per passenger per 100 kilometers for both the 747-8 and 747-400.
Please note, in the LH sustainability report on page 30, they refer to the 744 as "LH: 30 aircraft, 352* seats, 12,500 km range" "* maximum number of seats, different versions in operation"
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
AirlineCritic From Finland, joined Mar 2009, 611 posts, RR: 1 Reply 105, posted (9 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2603 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 104): This is a chart published by LH in 2009:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 104): And this chart was published by LH in 2011:
It is interesting that consumption went up from 3.5 (2009) to 3.8 (2011). Was that due to 748i missing some targets and PIPs, or did LH's configuration change in the middle? And how much should we believe some random numbers from a publication mostly intended for the general public... no assumptions have been stated.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26717 posts, RR: 83 Reply 107, posted (9 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2510 times:
Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 105): It is interesting that consumption went up from 3.5 (2009) to 3.8 (2011). Was that due to 748i missing some targets and PIPs, or did LH's configuration change in the middle?
The 2009 projections were based on 405 seats and most likely with LH's older First Class and Business Class seats. The 2011 projections are with 362-seats and the new First Class suites and Business Class seats, both of which are heavier than the older products.
Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 105): And how much should we believe some random numbers from a publication mostly intended for the general public... no assumptions have been stated.
Well at least there from an airline that actually operates the type.
If anybody happens to know what an LH 747-400 burns on FRA-IAD, we can compare it to the inaugural 747-8 flight on 01 June [LH 416] which burned 80t of fuel with a TOW of 378t, a LW of 296t and a payload of 50t (313 passengers, 20 crew, and bags+cargo).
rwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1989 posts, RR: 2 Reply 108, posted (9 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2386 times:
Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 105): It is interesting that consumption went up from 3.5 (2009) to 3.8 (2011). Was that due to 748i missing some targets and PIPs, or did LH's configuration change in the middle?
Between the two LH went from a 405 seat configuration to a 362 seat configuration - Assuming all else was equal, that alone would bump to fuel usage from 3.5 to 3.9l per passenger-100km.
Sponsor Message: 
From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1675 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2004, 3932 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26717 posts, 
From France, joined Jul 2005, 211 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Jul 2003, 4977 posts, 
From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2183 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Jan 2011, 262 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4117 posts, 
From Singapore, joined May 2012, 350 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7725 posts, 
From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 3174 posts, 
The 748I was doomed to fail from day one because of the existence of the 77W. It could have been a success, if the 77W didn't exist (the same goes for the A345 and A346 by the way).
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21488 posts, 
From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 480 posts, 
From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 6798 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1551 posts, 
From Pakistan, joined Dec 2005, 5188 posts, 
From Finland, joined Mar 2009, 611 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
