Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The 747-400NG  
User currently offline747classic From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 2230 posts, RR: 14
Posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4470 times:

After watching the first flight of the 747-8F the following thought came up :

The future of the current 747-400 passenger and combi fleets doesn't seem bright. Many, relative low time, aircraft are parked in the desert, only the 747-400F aircraft are expected to come out of the desert soon. Some are already earmarked for conversion to dedicated freighters by Bedek or Boeing, but cargo conversion demand is very low and is expected to increase very slowly in the coming years.
Especially the residual value of the full passenger aircraft has dropped dramatically, seen the relative high fuel consumption compared to the 777-300ER and the (larger) A388.

Would it be economically possible to re-engine the latest 747-400 aircraft with GEnx-2B engines. The basic lay out of the aircraft, landing gear, wing-box has not changed and a new pylon has already been designed for the 747-8. Only some fine tuning could do the trick. A fuel saving of approx. 14-15 % must be possible.

Especially the CF6-80C2 powered 747-400 aircraft could benefit from this re-engine project, because the residual value of this wide spread engine type is relative high. The removed engines can be used, after modification for the C-5M re-engine project and the Japanese CX project. GE could stop producing this engine type and concentrate on the new GEnx engines. Also the, at the moment, very profitable 747-combi concept could be maintained on the re-engined aircraft.

Your opinion please !!


Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
29 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinekimon From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 4441 times:

What is Bedek?
Many thanks!


User currently offline747classic From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 2230 posts, RR: 14
Reply 2, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 4426 times:

Quoting kimon (Reply 1):
What is Bedek?




Bedek Aviation group is part of Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) and is providing a secondary 747-400(combi) to dedicated freighter conversion. The company holds his own, reversed engineered, STC (Supplemental Type Certificate).

The primary 747-400 conversion source is Boeing with the 747-400BCF conversion.(BCF = Boeing converted freighter).
The actual -400BCF conversion is provided by others (Taico, SIA, etc.), but Boeing is the STC holder.



Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31436 posts, RR: 85
Reply 3, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 4394 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The 747-8 family in many ways is the 747-400NG.

If slapping new engines on the 747-400 would have made it desirable to the market again, Boeing likely would have done that instead of spending billions on the 747-8 program.

The 747-400 has been squeezed out of the passenger market by the A380-800 from above and the 777-300ER and A340-600 from below. All three planes carry more total payload than the 747-400 and fly it farther than the 747-400. The only advantage the 747-400 has is raw passenger capacity, and there only against the A340-600 and 777-300ER. Improving the 747-400's fuel efficiency would, at best, close the gap to the efficiency the A340-600 and 777-300ER already enjoy.

GE is already committed to the 747-8 program, so they won't be interested in a 747-400 re-engine program that would just cost the GEnx2B-67 orders. There is also the cost of certifying the GEnx2B for the 747-400 and mounting just one engine for a thousand hours of flight testing is a different thing from mounting four of them and operating them for tens of thousands of hours in a revenue environment.


User currently offline747classic From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 2230 posts, RR: 14
Reply 4, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 4357 times:

IMO, it's important not only to look from the manufactures side to this proposal, but also from the airlines point of view, both parties need each other :

At the moment many airlines are in an economic emergency, with not enough money to pay (or lease) the recent ordered new aircraft, they are merely trying to survive.

Why buy new, very expensive aircraft and sell your (partly owned) 747-400 aircraft, with many more airframe hours remaining, for nearly scrap value (only engines and some spare parts).
For GE it's an opportunity to close the CF6-80C production line in a few years time and sell more advanced (and more expensive ) GEnx engines.
Also for Boeing it's better to keep more 747-400 aircraft flying. This means less A388 will be actually built and their VLA-market share will not further erode. Boeing has to accept that it will cost a few 777-300ER and 747-8I orders in the next few years, but on the longer term it's a win-win situation for Boeing and the surviving airlines. The airlines will order some extra 747-8I aircraft in the future, because the easy transitioning from the 747-400NG to the -8I.

Implementation : For best results it could be a General Electric lead program, with full support of Boeing.
Airlines are paying for the upgrade - minus the price of the removed CF6 engines(if applicable).
GE can re-sell these engines to the USAF (C5-M re-engine program) or the Japanese CX project or other interested parties.

Result : a VLA -aircraft with far lower operating (fuel) costs, approx. equal to the A340, A388 and 77W, against a modest investment. Less noise and NOX emissions come as extra bonus for further future operation.



Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20362 posts, RR: 59
Reply 5, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 4158 times:

Quoting 747classic (Thread starter):

Would it be economically possible to re-engine the latest 747-400 aircraft with GEnx-2B engines. The basic lay out of the aircraft, landing gear, wing-box has not changed and a new pylon has already been designed for the 747-8. Only some fine tuning could do the trick. A fuel saving of approx. 14-15 % must be possible.

No because

1) The 77W carries more cargo, almost as many pax., and does so for a lot cheaper.

2) The 744 has the same wing as the 741. The only difference is the root fairing and the winglets. The 744 as it currently stands is only 3-4% more efficient per trip than the last 742's to roll off the line, and that efficiency comes from the winglets. Most of the CASM boost comes from the extended upper deck. To bring it even close to the 77W, you would have to re-wing it, likely with the 748 wing. That makes it into a 748 shrink, and we know how well those work.

3) Airlines are not in love with the 744 the way we are. The upper deck is a real challenge for cabin configurations. The four engines are a lot of maintenance. There are a lot of problems with its design that the 77W and A380 both solve in different ways.

I'd love to see the 744 live forever. In my opinion it is the most gorgeous plane ever built. Maybe the 748i will be more beautiful. I love the new widebodies (except the Quasi-Modo Monstrosity that Airbus built). But the 744 defined grace in a way no other airliner ever did.

Long live the Queen of the Skies.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31436 posts, RR: 85
Reply 6, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 4026 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 747classic (Reply 4):
For GE it's an opportunity to close the CF6-80C production line in a few years time and sell more advanced (and more expensive ) GEnx engines.

The one line that is making GE money hand-over-fist right now is the CF6, thanks to the sheer number of them in service and all the spares and other goodies those engines needs. GE will want to keep that line running as long as possible because it's in "cash cow mode" now, even if the engine itself is not as good as the Trent 700 and PW 4000 lines.



Quoting 747classic (Reply 4):
Also for Boeing it's better to keep more 747-400 aircraft flying. This means less A388 will be actually built and their VLA-market share will not further erode. Boeing has to accept that it will cost a few 777-300ER and 747-8I orders in the next few years, but on the longer term it's a win-win situation for Boeing and the surviving airlines. The airlines will order some extra 747-8I aircraft in the future, because the easy transitioning from the 747-400NG to the -8I.

I just don't think it would have worked. The A340-600 enjoyed an initial burst of success because it was more efficient than the 747-400, even if it was smaller. But once the 777-300ER came in, it knocked both aircraft out of the marketplace. It didn't lift as much as the A340-600 and it didn't carry as many people as the 747-400, but as an overall package for most missions, it was better. And airlines bought it by the hundreds, replacing A340-600s and 747-400s with them.

Boeing's marketing materials imply a 747-8 should be ≥15% more fuel efficient than a 747-400. Just slapping GEnx-2B's on a 747-400 is not going to deliver that level of fuel efficiency. So a re-engined 747-400 would not be as good as a 747-8, and yet the 747-8 has so far recorded two orders from two customers - both whom also operate (or have on order) the A380-800 and the A340-600 or 777-300ER.

So I just think a re-engined 747-400 would have belly-flopped in the market, and likely would have recorded zero orders. Honestly, I expect Boeing pitched such a plane to airlines in private, and privately they said "no thanks".


User currently offline747classic From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 2230 posts, RR: 14
Reply 7, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3993 times:

Thanks, Stitch and DocLightning for you comments.

I would have fully agreed with you in a normal aviation market situation.

So, let's rephrase the Question :

You are an airline CEO (or lessor) with a large fleet of 747-400's in the current economic downturn, faced with very low or no yield at all, high fuel prices and not much cash to buy (or lease) new aircraft to replace your whole 747-400 fleet.

The Question is :
Would it be cheaper to re-engine the relative new 747-400's with GEnx-2B engines and wait with investing in new aircraft until the economy regains its strength.
Or dispose of all 747-400 aircraft and get a bargain price for it and buy new, only a little bit more efficient aircraft, than the 747-400NG.

Certification of the 747-400NG will be relative cheap, because the engines and pylons are already designed for the 747-8 and will require only limited adaption to the 747-400 wing (same wing-box). The engine itself needs only de-rating to the present 747-400 thrust levels.
So, a large saving on engine maintenance costs can be achieved and very much improved hot/high engine performance, when needed. Also the payload/range will increase a large amount.

[Edited 2010-02-13 09:32:30]


Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
User currently offlineB777LRF From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1472 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3887 times:

Quoting 747classic (Reply 7):
Certification of the 747-400NG will be relative cheap

Nothing in aviation is cheap, not even relatively so. The cost of certification would have to me recouped, and you'll probably find those costs would outweigh any saving that might be derived from bolting new engines onto the aircraft.

Besides, the certification would have to be undertaken by Boeing - it's simply impossible for an airline, or even group of airlines, to carry that task. Since Boeing got -8s they'd much rather shift, you're likely to find they will have very little (read zero) interest in going through the certification process and, with that, your project is stillborn.



From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 26021 posts, RR: 22
Reply 9, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 3869 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 5):
The 744 has the same wing as the 741. The only difference is the root fairing and the winglets.

Not quite correct. The 744 also has wingtip extensions to which the winglets are attached. The wingtip extensions add almost 16 ft. to the 744's wingspan compared to earlier models. Only a small part of that 16 ft. comprises the winglets.

The 744Ds built for JL and NH domestic routes lack both the wingtip extensions and winglets but were designed so they could be added later in the event the 744Ds were moved to longhaul operations.

[Edited 2010-02-13 18:21:57]

User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20362 posts, RR: 59
Reply 10, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 3810 times:

Quoting 747classic (Reply 7):

Would it be cheaper to re-engine the relative new 747-400's with GEnx-2B engines and wait with investing in new aircraft until the economy regains its strength.

You will have to re-certify and then buy all the engines. The engines alone will cost more than what the 744's are worth, but the frames will be the same age and the wings will be the same wings. OTOH, a brand-new 77W saves a good bunch more fuel per frame, lasts a lot longer, is a lot more economical because of reduced engine maintenance, and keeps your passengers just as happy.

In fact, a 744NG was developed, with more powerful engines. It was called the 747-400/ER. It has LCD screens in the cockpit instead of CRT's and a 777 interior and a few other minor bells and whistles, but otherwise the same aircraft. I believe that QF was the only customer.


User currently offlineB777LRF From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1472 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 3790 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 10):
I believe that QF was the only customer.

Negative, Sir. Air France bought a few as well, albeit the -400ERF version.



From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
User currently offline747classic From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 2230 posts, RR: 14
Reply 12, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3783 times:

I don't want to buy a new passenger 747-400NG.
It is not a technical question that remains, more a operational (economic) question :
Would it be feasible to get some return on investment for the remaining 5-12 year old 747-400 airframes (last delivered 26-April-2005), that otherwise would be sold for scrap value or face long term storage in the desert.
For some operators with financial difficulties and large 747-400 fleets it could be a lower investment solution for upgrading their 747-400 fleets i.s.o. acquiring brand new aircraft, that are more efficient, but hardly affordable for these airlines in the current aviation market. They can postpone (temp.) their A380 deliveries

I am thinking about KL, with a large 747-400 combi fleet, BA , CX , QF etc.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 10):
In fact, a 744NG was developed, with more powerful engines. It was called the 747-400/ER. It has LCD screens in the cockpit instead of CRT's and a 777 interior and a few other minor bells and whistles, but otherwise the same aircraft. I believe that QF was the only customer



The six (6) 747-400ER passenger aircraft produced for QF are only 747-400's with a higher MTOW and one or two aux. fuel tanks to increase the range. The higher thrust ratings of the engines are offered on all 747-400's. The CRT screens are replaced on one by one basis on most 747-400's. Also most of the new built 747-400 aircraft, produced after the delivery of the first 747-400ER were produced with LCD screens , it's a PIP for all 747-400's. The OEW of the -ER aircraft is slightly higher, so on all flights below the max. range of the original 747-400 the economics will be less. It's an aircraft used only for operating at the end of the extended range (LHR-SYD-LHR).

The question remains : What will be the reaction from Boeing if a request for a 747-400NG update will be made from a mayor airline.

[Edited 2010-02-14 02:51:36]


Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17186 posts, RR: 66
Reply 13, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3777 times:

Quoting 747classic (Reply 12):
I don't want to buy a new passenger 747-400NG.

Why not? Just imagine what your wife would say.  



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offline747classic From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 2230 posts, RR: 14
Reply 14, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3752 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 13):
Why not? Just imagine what your wife would say.



She are already owns me, what more does she want to have !  



Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31436 posts, RR: 85
Reply 15, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3698 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 11):
Negative, Sir. Air France bought a few as well, albeit the -400ERF version.

Quite a number of customers purchased the freighter model of the 747-400ER, however only QF took the passenger model, which is what we're discussing here.  
Quoting 747classic (Reply 7):
Would it be cheaper to re-engine the relative new 747-400's with GEnx-2B engines and wait with investing in new aircraft until the economy regains its strength. Or dispose of all 747-400 aircraft and get a bargain price for it and buy new, only a little bit more efficient aircraft, than the 747-400NG.

As DocLightning notes, there is a capital cost to slapping new engines on an existing frame, even if said cost is significantly cheaper than a new frame. Four GEnx2B engines will cost you upwards of $80 million. And yet a 747-400 from 1989 is worth as little as 20 million and one from 1993 is averages around 40m. So you could spend twice or even four times as much as your airframe is worth on the engines.

On the flip side, a new 777-300ER would cost you around $150 million. So for twice as much money, you get a brand new plane as opposed to one that is a decade or two old. This new plane burns less fuel then your re-engined 747-400. It will require significantly less maintenance expenditures, plus it benefits from a warranty. It will fly farther than your 747-400 or you can load more revenue cargo in the hold over the same distance as your 747-400.

So while you have a new mortgage payment, the money you are saving from getting rid of your 747-400 and the money you make from operating the new plane in revenue service likely pencil out much better than slapping new engines on an old 747-400 and flying it for another two decades.


User currently offline747classic From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 2230 posts, RR: 14
Reply 16, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3679 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 15):
As DocLightning notes, there is a capital cost to slapping new engines on an existing frame, even if said cost is significantly cheaper than a new frame. Four GEnx2B engines will cost you upwards of $80 million. And yet a 747-400 from 1989 is worth as little as 20 million and one from 1993 is averages around 40m. So you could spend twice or even four times as much as your airframe is worth on the engines.

On the flip side, a new 777-300ER would cost you around $150 million. So for twice as much money, you get a brand new plane as opposed to one that is a decade or two old. This new plane burns less fuel then your re-engined 747-400. It will require significantly less maintenance expenditures, plus it benefits from a warranty. It will fly farther than your 747-400 or you can load more revenue cargo in the hold over the same distance as your 747-400.

So while you have a new mortgage payment, the money you are saving from getting rid of your 747-400 and the money you make from operating the new plane in revenue service likely pencil out much better than slapping new engines on an old 747-400 and flying it for another two decades



According the Boeing pricelist of 2008 a 777-300ER costs between 257.0 -- 286.5 milj. USD.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/prices/index.html

I know that you can get a certain discount, but 120 milj USD discount!!!
Then also the same applies when you buy 4 new GEnx-2Bengines + pylons + certification.
The removed engines also have a relative large residual value and can be overhauled and re-used.

Let's compare the two :

On the 747-8 (list price 293.0 -- 308.0 milj. USD), the fuselage alone costs 300-80 (4 x GEnx-2B) = 220 milj. USD.
On the 747-400NG the -400 fuselage ( that you already own) costs 40 milj. USD, minus the value of the removed engines.

I think that a lot of difference in investment for a troubled airline.



Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
User currently offlineSeaBosDca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5854 posts, RR: 6
Reply 17, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3677 times:

Quoting 747classic (Reply 16):
According the Boeing pricelist of 2008 a 777-300ER costs between 257.0 -- 286.5 milj. USD.

For any operator large enough to be operating a significant fleet of aircraft this large, list price is meaningless. Assume a 30% discount at the very least, and likely much more. A $150 million 777-300ER is a very reasonable assumption.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31436 posts, RR: 85
Reply 18, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3645 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 747classic (Reply 16):
According the Boeing pricelist of 2008 a 777-300ER costs between 257.0 -- 286.5 milj. USD.

The minimum discount on a widebody is ≥40%, assuming you are ordering (or intend to order) more than one.


User currently offline747classic From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 2230 posts, RR: 14
Reply 19, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3572 times:

Quoting SeaBosDca (Reply 17):
Assume a 30% discount at the very least, and likely much more. A $150 million 777-300ER is a very reasonable assumption
Quoting Stitch (Reply 18):
The minimum discount on a widebody is ≥40%, assuming you are ordering (or intend to order) more than one.



Source ?

If you are a launching customer you can get a huge discount. (747-8I : LH. 747-8F : KZ, CV)
Also when you ordering a very large amount of aircraft you can negotiate a large discount. Maybe only valid for EK (A388, 777) and AF/KL (777).

But if you want to trade-in a large number of 10 year old 747-400's (otherwise only scrap value or desert storage) your bargaining position is not so good anymore.

If you come up with a good proposal for re-engining several 747-400's and ordering a few additional 747-8I aircraft (plus options), you may be in a better bargaining position.



Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20362 posts, RR: 59
Reply 20, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3559 times:

Quoting 747classic (Reply 12):
The OEW of the -ER aircraft is slightly higher, so on all flights below the max. range of the original 747-400 the economics will be less. It's an aircraft used only for operating at the end of the extended range (LHR-SYD-LHR).

UA uses a 744 on SFO-SYD. QF uses a 744ER. Obviously, QF sees an advantage. I do have to say that GE engines look better on the 744 than RR.


User currently offline747classic From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 2230 posts, RR: 14
Reply 21, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3533 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 20):
UA uses a 744 on SFO-SYD. QF uses a 744ER. Obviously, QF sees an advantage



Aircraft rotation ?
The -400ER aircraft are preferably used on stretches at their range limit, but for aircraft rotation issues they are also used on shorter stretches. Part of the 747-400 fleet has the same seat configuration as the 400ER fleet according the fleet summary at the QF website.(14 first, 66 business, 40 premium economy, 187 economy.). So on shorter stretches the 747-400ER can be substituted by a 747-400, if necessary.
After the arrival of the QF A388's the 747-400ER aircraft will also be used on other less range limiting stretches.
But even after the removal of the aux. fuel tanks from the FWD cargo compartment, the OEW of the -400ER remains higher than the original 747-400's.



Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31436 posts, RR: 85
Reply 22, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 3367 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 747classic (Reply 19):
Source?

Boeing and Airbus financial records showing profit margins ≤10% from their Commercial Aircraft Groups, financial reports from airlines that show what they spent on aircraft purchases, information given to me from people who have seen a Boeing and Airbus widebody RFPs and sales contracts, and reviews of reports by a number of aircraft valuation firms who make it a business of knowing who is paying what.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20362 posts, RR: 59
Reply 23, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 3278 times:

Quoting 747classic (Reply 16):
As DocLightning notes, there is a capital cost to slapping new engines on an existing frame, even if said cost is significantly cheaper than a new frame.

About 30% of the cost of the airframe, IIRC.


User currently offline747classic From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 2230 posts, RR: 14
Reply 24, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 3232 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 23):
About 30% of the cost of the airframe, IIRC.


New 747-8 : 4x GEnx = 70 milj (incl discount), total cost 210 USD.
In present situation 747-400 all pax.airframes are nearly impossible to sell, so extra write off (book value) is 35 milj. (engines sold)
Investment and financing add. write off : 210+35 = 245 milj. USD

Re-engined 747-400NG : 4xGEnx + second hand airframe , minus removed engines = 70+35 =105 milj.
No write off, only removed engines are sold.
Investment needed 70 milj USD.

The improvement of the 747-8 is largely based on the improved TSFC of the GEnx engine. A few percent extra gain is made with the re-contoured wing, most additional changes (flaps etc) are made to make the aircraft comply at the very latest noise regulations.(LHR). Because the remaining economic lifespan of the 747-400NG is shorter than a new 747-8 or 773ER, this is not seen as a large disadvantage. The total noise print of the 747-400NG satisfies all present regulations with a large margin and is comparable to the 773ER, now offered.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 22):
Boeing and Airbus financial records showing profit margins ≤10% from their Commercial Aircraft Groups, financial reports from airlines that show what they spent on aircraft purchases, information given to me from people who have seen a Boeing and Airbus wide body RFPs and sales contracts, and reviews of reports by a number of aircraft valuation firms who make it a business of knowing who is paying what



I was (now retired) involved with my company in large modification (747) projects. Many business cases were made , in close cooperation with the department that arranged all RFP's with (in this case) Boeing.
As example : one of these business cases lead to the introduction of the first two 747-200B(SUD)SF aircraft of the world and bypassing new 747-400F purchases until a the better suited 747-400ERF was introduced. The certification of these modified aircraft could be arranged at relative low costs, because Boeing wanted it as a step up project for the later 747-400BCF program. At present, these 1975 built aircraft are still operating with Southern Air.
Only as a 747-400 launching carrier we received large discounts, but we had to take most of the extra introduction costs of the 747-400 our-self ( follow up costs of long introduction delays are not covered).)


Discount of 40-50% were only given to launching customers or when very large quantities of aircraft were bought. and a financial sound company was involved (backed by large AAA investors or (in the past) governments).
In the present economic situation only a few companies (EK, SQ , etc.) are financial solid at the moment, the rest is for the large manufactures a high risk. The manufacturer can give a large discount, but after a few deliveries the remaining aircraft orders are on indef. hold or cancelled. Also the large leasing companies are less financial solid at the moment.

IMO, a re-engined 747-400 can have a chance in this "weird" market conditions because large amounts of relative young 747-400 airframes are available and cannot be sold for a price that is approaching the book value (normally these aircraft have a "write off" over approx 18-25 years) at the moment. Sending more 747-400 aircraft to the desert or scrapping them will cause even more constrain on the already depressed financial situation of most airlines and lessors.
Also for Boeing it's a change to keep the present customers "fly Boeing" and on the long term to achieve more orders for the 747-8.

Regards
Peter.

[Edited 2010-02-16 03:45:20]


Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
25 Determinist : BA are rumoured to have got around 45% off their A380's and they only ordered 12 (+ 7 options).
26 Stitch : Boeing gains nothing from re-enging the 747-400 family. All that is going to do is make customers fly those planes longer and not buy 747-8s, 747-8Fs,
27 DocLightning : Right. I was saying that I recalled hearing that engines were worth about 30% of the cost of a *new* airframe. Sorry if I was vague. Your numbers rou
28 747classic : Or A388,and A350 variants. It's better to keep your customer "fly Boeing" till the financial position of the airlines is recovering and a step is mad
29 Stitch : The problem is, an airline will not re-engine a plane just to "tide them over a few years" until they can afford a new plane. The costs are far too hi
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic The 747-400NG
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Upper Deck F Class Suites On The 747 posted Mon Apr 21 2008 12:04:08 by LH4116
Differents Between The 747 & L1011 RB 2:11 524? posted Wed Apr 18 2007 05:57:49 by 747400sp
Should Boeing Had Kept The 747 Wing At 40 Degrees? posted Mon Apr 16 2007 04:01:23 by 747400sp
The Size Of The 747 Freighter Opening posted Sat Oct 21 2006 11:34:47 by NZ107
What Naca Airfoil Type Does The 747-400 Use? posted Thu Oct 12 2006 15:06:04 by Flybyguy
What's This Little Hump On The 747? posted Sat Jul 22 2006 18:48:45 by Alphafloor
Holes On The Cowlings Of The 747? posted Sun Apr 16 2006 02:58:58 by CalAir
Stretching The 747 Upper Deck posted Sun Jan 29 2006 04:13:17 by Bongo
Different Lengths Of The 747-8(00) posted Sat Jan 21 2006 06:01:37 by Bohica
Info About The 747-400 Combi (OEW) posted Thu Mar 10 2005 02:13:30 by Luis777

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format