Africawings From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 112 posts, RR: 0 Posted (8 years 1 month 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2790 times:
Given the recent statements from Qantas saying they can't use a 777LR year round due to its limited range and ETOPS requirements, I was wondering if there is a market for a new 747-8SP aircraft that has a shorter fuselage holding say 280 passengers with an 11,000 mile range and can operate from London to Sydney both ways year round.
KELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6509 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (8 years 1 month 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2789 times:
I understand EK was rather dissapoined with Boeing for going for the longer proposed length of the 747-8i fuselage...one wonders if a shorter-length fuse would b in the works...it would give EK the range boost they would be looking for in such an aircraft
Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
Prebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6689 posts, RR: 54
Reply 4, posted (8 years 1 month 23 hours ago) and read 2686 times:
With the current fuel prices I doubt a 748SP very much. I also doubt much more sales of planes like 772LR.
At such ultra long rance flights the fuel burn tend to be up to 10 tonnes for each ton of payload. That way by far the major part of fuel is burned just for transporting fuel.
When fuel costs are a high percentage of the total operating costs, then a fuel stop on those very long range flights make more economic sense. That will affect the fares on ultra long range flights more per seat mile than shorter flights.
That will reduce the market for ultra long range planes.
On a maximum range flight for a 772LR the total fuel bill one way is with current fuel prices around $100,000, which with average load factor translates to $500 per occupied seat or $1,000 for a return ticket.
An alternative could be using a 773 or 773ER with a fuel stop. That would add roughly two hours to the one way travel time. The 773 would use some more fuel for an extra take-off, but save that again on never having to deal with a full fuel load.
It would take along 100 more seats for roughtly the same total fuel consumption.
That will mean a fuel cost disadvantage in the region of $300 per pax for the non-stop roundtrip flight. How much people are willing to pay that amount for avoiding two stopovers and 4 additional travel hours? Some are, but fewer than a few years ago when the fuel cost disadvantage was $100 or so.
The $100 saving would probably be almost eliminated by less landing fees, reduced wear on tires and brakes, etc. But the $300 savings would not.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
SCAT15F From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 402 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (8 years 1 month 19 hours ago) and read 2642 times:
A 747-8I shrunk to the original SP length of 184 Ft but with the 747-400 upper deck (20-40 more pax) and use of the crown space (12 more pax) would be able to seat about 325 in a 3-class arrangement, and with a max TOW of about 775,000lb it would in theory be able to carry that payload about 9,800 nm; with the same thrust ratings as the regular 748I, I believe it could do it at a speed of mach .89-.90 and an altitude of 45-48,000 ft. It would also have the climb performance of a 757-200.
It would of course, be a niche aircraft with maybe 100-150 orders.
Remember, the 777-200LR can only do the 9420 nm range with the 3 aux fuel tanks, which means less payload than normal, and no one has even ordered that option yet, so the "current" range is more like 8900 nm.