747-600X From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2793 posts, RR: 15 Posted (12 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2673 times:
The differences between the 747-300 and -400 were large, but not as large as those between the -400 and the -400XQWERTYUIOP or whatever it's called. So instead of lining up all those letters, why don't they just nix the whole lettering thing and call it the -500? Am I the only one who thinks that would be kinda' neat?
"Mental health is reality at all cost." -- M. Scott Peck, 'The Road Less Traveled'
Cwapilot From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1166 posts, RR: 17
Reply 3, posted (12 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2519 times:
DROP IT! Who cares what they call it!? No need to get your panties in a bunch over it. We have endured three days so far of constant angst over the designation of the new 744 derivative, mostly from smart*ss Airbus fanatics that like to pick at any perceived scab that they can...the same people who would have no problem if Airbus decided to call the A380 the Jumbo SkySausage. If they did, would it change anything about the plane?
I guess I am forgetting the two most important factors an airline CEO has to consider...how it looks, and what it's called.....
Southside Irish...our two teams are the White Sox and whoever plays the Cubs!
Leigh Pilgrim From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2000, 392 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (12 years 7 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 2381 times:
Probably wrong in saying this!, but the 747 is old, why not just build a 747-500/600 and extened the upper deck with FBW technology, If Airbus bring out the Airbus A380 although it will cause havock at airports, airlines are going to purchase that and not spend money on a 747-400XQR or whatever its called because these not much change, apart from being able to carry more fuel and fly further?
KAUSpilot From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 1959 posts, RR: 33
Reply 10, posted (12 years 7 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 2351 times:
Airlines who cannot fill a 550 seat A380 may still opt for a 747 if that's what they need. It would be expensive to operate 3/4 full A380 over a packed 747.
There really isn't a big enough market out there to support two A380 size planes. Airbus got their design out first (boeing probably wasn't even considering anything similair, not that it matters) so Airbus will get the market share of aircraft over 400 seats.
EA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13613 posts, RR: 62
Reply 11, posted (12 years 7 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 2333 times:
FWIW, I totally agree. The new version of the B-747 needs to be denoted as the -500 series. Adding on extra letters just gets too cumbersome after awhile. Besides, the changes in the construction itself warrants being known as a new subtype.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
Bigginhill From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 32 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (12 years 7 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 2321 times:
Does anyone need the A380 or 747-500 or whatever you want to call it? You hardly see a 747 coming into Heathrow from the USA anymore its all 777's. And lets face it there is bound to be another terroist attack or conflict in the Gulf soon. Then here we go again with all those empty seats.
Spaceman From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 534 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (12 years 7 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 2250 times:
I think Boeing already had a plane called the 747-500. This plane was design with the 600 serie 747. Unfortunately it got shelved along with the 600 since Boeing belived that the market for these planes were not significant enough to justify the production of them.
After that happened Boeing came out with the SC and they claim that's where the future market will be.