Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
748I Vs 77W As A 744 Replacement  
User currently onlineUA735WL From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 145 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 9856 times:

This has been bothering me recently

So with so many airlines' 744 fleets on their way out, many airlines are beginning to replace them with 77Ws as opposed to 748Is. Why is this? One would think that a 748I could effectively "sneak" into a schedual, operating the same route previously operated by the 744 (albeit much more efficiently and carriers could reconfigure the 748I's extra capacity over the 744 to suit the demand) and utilize the preexisting facilities for the 744 (saving money on transition costs). The 77W however, represents a decrease in capacity rather than an increase and (from what I understand) requires 2 rotations to provide the same capacity on a route as a 748I. Any thoughts? Is the 748 really that uneconomical?


A or B? I'll stick with MD...
14 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 8698 posts, RR: 29
Reply 1, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 9835 times:

The difference in CASM between the 77W and the 748 is too small and the 77W can do almost all of the 744 missions, so why buying a 4 engine jet of the one with 2 engines can do (almost) the same.

About the capacity, the KLM for example holds more seats in their 77W than in their full pax 744. And the 77W can hold more cargo (correct me if I'm wrong).



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12058 posts, RR: 52
Reply 2, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 9826 times:

No. The B-748 is not "uneconomical" if used on missions it is designed for. LH seems very happy with their B-748s, even though the do not use the full pax capability in their configuration (but a more premimum service). The B-77W is a great airplane, but in a normal pax configuration is a 350 seat airplane, the B-748 can carry anout 100+ seats in the same configuration. The A-380 another 70 seats above that.

So, if your airline mission is to move 350 pax, plus cargo 7000-8000 nm, than you buy the B-77W, if you need to move 460 pax and cargo over that same distance than the B-748 is for you, more than that (but less cargo) you need the A-380.

It all comes down to what you need it for.

There are several other considerations, too, like training, commonality, purchased/leasing costs, operating costs, etc.




Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 1):
About the capacity, the KLM for example holds more seats in their 77W than in their full pax 744.


KLM B-77W = 425 seats

KLM B-744 = 405 seats

But KLM has 10 across seating in the B-77Ws, smaller galleys and lavs, IIRC.

Yes, the B-77W carries more cargo with 7120 ft3 in the holds, the B-744 has 6025 ft3 in the holds.

[Edited 2012-11-22 09:55:25 by SA7700]

User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29656 posts, RR: 84
Reply 3, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 9667 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The 777-300ER is more economical than the 747-8 and the lower capacity can help increase the average revenue per seat by tailoring supply to demand. It also offers more revenue cargo space.

And if you need more capacity than the 777-300ER can offer, the A380-800 appears to be the more economical option than the 747-8 thanks to it's greater size.


User currently offlineswallow From Uganda, joined Jul 2007, 554 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 9667 times:

One reason is because the 748i is sandwiched between two efficient platforms, the 77W and the 380. So the large 744 operators opted to replace her with the 77W or the 388 or both.

Second she was rather late to the party, when the 77W had taken most of the bottom end of the 744 replacement market, with the 388 taking the top end. The 346 took a few scraps as well.

The 77W burns something like 1/3 less fuel than the 744 while carrying more cargo.

The 748F has a bright future; the 748i less so.



The grass is greener where you water it
User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2539 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 9605 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting UA735WL (Thread starter):
The 77W however, represents a decrease in capacity rather than an increase and (from what I understand) requires 2 rotations to provide the same capacity on a route as a 748I.

No.

If we are to use the Boeing standard configuration for both aircraft types, the 777-300ER has a deficit of 99 seats. Two 777-300ERs would have 269 seat advantage over the 747-8. However, the 777-300ER has a distinct cargo and payload range advantage over the 747-400. The 747-8 has a better payload range but the 777-300ER still has more container positions below deck.

I think that for some airlines, the 747-8 will be a fantastic one for one replacement for the 747-400, especially if it needs the extra passenger capacity or payload/range that the 747-8 offers. But for outright lifting ability, the 777-300ER is the plane to choose. Fewer passengers mean fewer containers used for bags, and more available space for revenue cargo where volume and weight constrictions permit.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 1):
so why buying a 4 engine jet of the one with 2 engines can do (almost) the same.

  

I would agree that the days of quad engined jets are numbered.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlineLufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3196 posts, RR: 10
Reply 6, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 9605 times:

I think the late to the party part is a big part of it.

if the 748 was flying in 2004 like the 77W was, it may have been a different story.
But as for commonality its a moot point. Most of the carriers that have the 744 that ordered the 77W also
had the 772ER. The type was basically supported either way.


User currently offlineDarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1281 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 9568 times:

Quoting UA735WL (Thread starter):
The 77W however, represents a decrease in capacity rather than an increase

Not always, as many have pointed out. In fact, there are domestic model 773s operating with ANA that have effectively supplanted even the 74D models. There really is no "safe" zone for the 747, outside of freight, anymore.

Quoting UA735WL (Thread starter):
requires 2 rotations to provide the same capacity on a route as a 748I.

That's somewhat overstated. If you're only talking about replacing the exact number of seats on a route, you can make your second frequency with something a lot smaller, like a 73G, if the route is short enough. You don't have twice as many seats in a 748. In fact, in the only configuration numbers we have to work with, the difference between that and your average 77W is more like 10%. So, you have another option; just not doing a second frequency at all, and save a ton of operational cost.

Quoting UA735WL (Thread starter):
Is the 748 really that uneconomical?

In a word, yes.

This wouldn't be true if there were either no A380 (which itself is only useful on a small and specialized number of routings), or no 773/W. If either was the case, the 748i would still be in the game. But it isn't.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
The A-380 another 70 seats above that.

The 380 can comfortably carry quite a bit more than just 520 seats. We only don't see more than about 600 (which is still a big ways above 520) because a lot of her operators have been so premium focused. I'm curious to see what 800+ will feel like when Austral (if, I should say) takes theirs. I'm betting it won't be all that bad.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):
Yes, the B-77W carries more cargo with 7120 ft3 in the holds, the B-744 has 6025 ft3 in the holds.

And we can see just from this that this is not a trivial difference. Like I said, there really just isn't any safe place for the 747 in the PAX market these days.



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29656 posts, RR: 84
Reply 8, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 9545 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 7):
I think the late to the party part is a big part of it.

if the 748 was flying in 2004 like the 77W was, it may have been a different story.

EIS definitely played a role, but the 747-8 could not exist before the 787 (as it needed the engines), so even if the 747-8 had entered service in 2009 per the original plan, the 777-300ER still would have had a five year head start.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 8698 posts, RR: 29
Reply 9, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 9484 times:

Quote:
This wouldn't be true if there were either no A380 (which itself is only useful on a small and specialized number of routings), or no 773/W.

The 748i could have been a better aircraft with a CFRP wing (and no overweight, lower fuel burn etc). But it remains an aircraft for a niche market and developing a CFRP wing is very expensive. I understand why Boeing did not go that way.

For what it's worth, here is the opinion of Tim Clark:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...le-for-sparse-747-8i-sales-353042/



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8089 posts, RR: 7
Reply 10, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 9172 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
No. The B-748 is not "uneconomical" if used on missions it is designed for. LH seems very happy with their B-748s, even though the do not use the full pax capability in their configuration (but a more premimum service). The B-77W is a great airplane, but in a normal pax configuration is a 350 seat airplane, the B-748 can carry anout 100+ seats in the same configuration. The A-380 another 70 seats above that.

Lufthansa is almost unique among airline since almost all its long haul planes are 4 engined with the exception of the A330-300. Their 748 are real beauties and I wish more airlines would order them.


User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4055 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 7358 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
And if you need more capacity than the 777-300ER can offer, the A380-800 appears to be the more economical option than the 747-8 thanks to it's greater size.

I have the greatest of respect for you Mr. Wallace, and I for the most part agree with your opinions, but I have to take exception to the above statement only in that I am sure that it is not as simple as you put it. There are obviously more variables that just moving passengers. There are the type of engines, there is the fact that if you send an A380 with say 554 passengers one way and returns with 390 passengers, which one would have the advantage? The 748 which would not be able to hold that number of passengers going the one way and would have to fore go the revenue it could generate, or the profit margin that would suffer flying the A380 back not at full capacity? Plus you would have to factor in the cargo factor.



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29656 posts, RR: 84
Reply 12, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 7245 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting brilondon (Reply 12):
There are the type of engines, there is the fact that if you send an A380 with say 554 passengers one way and returns with 390 passengers, which one would have the advantage?

In a 2001 comparison between the 747X and A380, Geoffrey Beuscher concluded that the A380-800 breaks even on a trip-cost basis at a load-factor of 56% - 323 of 525 seats filled. That same report says a 747-400 needs a 70& load-factor to break even - 290 of 423 seats filled.

With Boeing stating trip costs of the 747-8 are just slightly more than those of the 747-400, one could conclude that a 747-8's break even is around 300 seats (out of 467) using Mr. Beuscher's calculations.So in such a scenario, the A380-800 makes more money flying the return leg than the 747-8 would. And it really cleans house on the outbound.

And that is why I believe airlines are ordering the A380-800 and not the 747-8.

On the 747-8's sales prospects, I find myself in agreement with lightsaber in that I believe the plane will sell either in high-density Economy configurations or high-density premium cabin configurations where the plane's impressive payload weight and superior engine-out performance are strengths compared to the 777-300ER | 777X | A350-1000. I think it a natural A340-600 replacement for operations out of hot and or high airports or long over-water missions. While BA has decided against the plane, I would not say it impossible that the IAG group might consider it for IB and I could also possibly see it bought by SA - in both cases, as A340-600 replacements.

[Edited 2012-11-22 13:14:39]

User currently offlinetravelhound From Australia, joined May 2008, 824 posts, RR: 12
Reply 13, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 6548 times:

My back of the envelope numbers suggest the 747-8 has operating costs per seat approximately 5% lower than the 77W. My back of the envelope numbers also suggest a 747-8 typically costs around $11 million per year extra to operate.

If we use Boeing's seat counts for both aircraft (77W - 365, 747-8 - 467) and assume the 747 flies 300 flights per year an airline has to generate revenue of approximately $360 per seat per flight to cover the additional operating cost of the 747-8. Considering the extra seats in the 747-8 are in the back of the aircraft, it probably gives us a good idea why airlines are choosing the 77W.


User currently offlinegasman From New Zealand, joined Mar 2004, 848 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4792 times:

The 77W is undeniably a more economical aircraft - but not by as much as is sometimes suggested. Simultaneously with moving from the 774 to 77W, airlines stared shoe-horning in passengers, and this has muddied the waters somewhat in terms of comparing economics. It isn't fair, for example, to compare a 10 abreast 77W with a 10 abreast 748i, because the latter will be offering greater passenger comfort.

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...
British Airways 744 Replacement? posted Sun May 20 2012 23:29:02 by boeingfever777
Delta JFK T4 Extension As A T3 Replacement posted Wed Jan 11 2012 07:23:47 by boswashsprstar
BA 744 Replacement(787-10X/35X/777X) posted Mon Sep 19 2011 16:03:03 by QFA787380
Scaled Down 787 As 737 Replacement posted Sat May 29 2010 04:25:15 by ebj1248650
Corsair : 77W , Transaero:744 ; Info , Question. posted Tue Sep 15 2009 10:45:09 by FCKC
The Effects Of 77W Replacing 744? posted Fri Dec 19 2008 18:48:16 by 747400sp
787-3 As A 767 Replacement posted Fri Dec 5 2008 12:22:50 by DL767captain
Multiple Terminals Vs. "as Few As Possible Big" posted Tue Oct 14 2008 01:21:39 by NicoEDDF
744 Replacement - How Will The A350-10 Do? posted Fri May 30 2008 04:14:08 by CHRISBA777ER
Air India 77W's And 744's, Status? posted Sun Sep 23 2007 19:26:01 by RetroLivery