AFAIK, there's close to 200 747-400Fs around...will it be likely for the 747-8F to snatch significant orders (let's say at least 50-100) just as those 747-400Fs need replacing?

Air cargo seems to be on the up - http://www.aircargonews.net/news/airlin ... -high.html

Surely there's still significant life left in the 747-8F?

Unlikely, IMO. Air cargo is still rather weak and more and more of it is smaller and lighter items (like consumer electronics) that can be carried in the holds of passenger jets.

With fuel so cheap, operating 747-400 series freighters is economical enough that it doesn't justify the capital expense of a new 747-8 freighter to get the fuel savings. You also have the 777 Freighter able to lift around 90% of the payload weight of a 747-400F so for heavier items where you reach payload weight limits before volume limits, that is a very efficient platform. And the 777-8F (when it comes) will pretty much close the volume gap to the 747-400 and become it's direct replacement once those frames become too old or too uneconomical to continue operation.

I expect Boeing has already done the "last call" for the 747-8 and that secured the UPS and AirBridge orders which gives the program till around 2020 before it runs out. I don't expect Boeing to secure more than a couple more, frankly, and I would think within the next year they will announce the program is formally folding (as they will be placing the last long-lead time parts orders).

Surely there's still significant life left in the 747-8F?

That's what Boeing keeps telling but hasn't materialized so far. Couple issues are:

- More and more operators are moving to belly freight as plenty of 787s and A350s come online.
- Cargo yields are low, making the business case for an expensive dedicated freighter difficult.
- Oil is cheap, making second-hand freighters more attractive.
- Even if the above wouldn't apply, many 747s can by replaced by 777 freighters as some unique features are barely used.

Now that aircraft are fly-by-wire, how difficult would it be to eventually see a freighter company certify a swing-nose 777 for long/oversize freight? I'm talking maybe 6-10 aircraft total, not a production run.

Alternatively, when Airbus gets to the point of needing a replacement for the Beluga (or Boeing the Dreamlifter), will we see a cargo airline piggy-back on the engineering to build a few extra of that aircraft for commercial use?

Alternatively, when Airbus gets to the point of needing a replacement for the Beluga (or Boeing the Dreamlifter), will we see a cargo airline piggy-back on the engineering to build a few extra of that aircraft for commercial use?

Now, that is an interesting question! I've wondered that myself and have no idea. There's a limit to how small the various subassemblies can be shopped up and fit inside a 777 freighter, for example. I suppose the A380 could be a potential platform, but isn't the 'tween deck floor part of the plane's integral structure?

NameOmitted wrote:

Now that aircraft are fly-by-wire, how difficult would it be to eventually see a freighter company certify a swing-nose 777 for long/oversize freight? I'm talking maybe 6-10 aircraft total, not a production run.

Alternatively, when Airbus gets to the point of needing a replacement for the Beluga (or Boeing the Dreamlifter), will we see a cargo airline piggy-back on the engineering to build a few extra of that aircraft for commercial use?

Isn't Airbus getting a newer version of the Beluga, or are you referring to one after that?

SFOATLFlyer wrote:

NameOmitted wrote:

Now that aircraft are fly-by-wire, how difficult would it be to eventually see a freighter company certify a swing-nose 777 for long/oversize freight? I'm talking maybe 6-10 aircraft total, not a production run.

Alternatively, when Airbus gets to the point of needing a replacement for the Beluga (or Boeing the Dreamlifter), will we see a cargo airline piggy-back on the engineering to build a few extra of that aircraft for commercial use?

Isn't Airbus getting a newer version of the Beluga, or are you referring to one after that?

Yup, being build as we speak, based on the A330-200, five will be build.

The point of the 747-8 was the passenger version, that is dead. Regarding the 747--8F, there have been 86 ordered and 71 delivered. Is the market much bigger? There have been 126 747-400F delivered, big part of them still operational. How many civil freighters with the possibility of loading long pieces through a front door are needed? There are also AN-124 in operation. Than there are the 767-300F, the A330F, the 777F if you do not need to load long parts through the nose. The 747-8 line will finish the outstanding orders and than close down.

Sadly after a strong launch order from LH for 20 748 planes follow on orders never came except from Air China & Korean Air. JAL & BA were also suppose to be launch customers.

mjoelnir wrote:

The point of the 747-8 was the passenger version, that is dead. Regarding the 747--8F, there have been 86 ordered and 71 delivered. Is the market much bigger? There have been 126 747-400F delivered, big part of them still operational. How many civil freighters with the possibility of loading long pieces through a front door are needed? There are also AN-124 in operation. Than there are the 767-300F, the A330F, the 777F if you do not need to load long parts through the nose. The 747-8 line will finish the outstanding orders and than close down.

The An124 is in a whole different world than most other freighters out there.

Dutchy wrote:

Yup, being build as we speak, based on the A330-200, five will be build.

Technically the new Beluga XL is "frankensteined" from the A330-200 with fuselage parts of the A330-300.

TWA772LR wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

The point of the 747-8 was the passenger version, that is dead. Regarding the 747--8F, there have been 86 ordered and 71 delivered. Is the market much bigger? There have been 126 747-400F delivered, big part of them still operational. How many civil freighters with the possibility of loading long pieces through a front door are needed? There are also AN-124 in operation. Than there are the 767-300F, the A330F, the 777F if you do not need to load long parts through the nose. The 747-8 line will finish the outstanding orders and than close down.

The An124 is in a whole different world than most other freighters out there.

Even with declaring that the AN-124 is a whole different world it does not change the fact that also the AN-124 provides capacity in the civil air freight market. When you do not have out sized freight, a 777F or A330F will do the job more economical than either a 747-8F or the AN-124.

mjoelnir wrote:

The point of the 747-8 was the passenger version, that is dead. Regarding the 747--8F, there have been 86 ordered and 71 delivered. Is the market much bigger? There have been 126 747-400F delivered, big part of them still operational. How many civil freighters with the possibility of loading long pieces through a front door are needed? There are also AN-124 in operation. Than there are the 767-300F, the A330F, the 777F if you do not need to load long parts through the nose. The 747-8 line will finish the outstanding orders and than close down.

There were a lot more than 126 744F's built. Think 248 or so. Hopefully a few carriers will replace atleast some of their 744's with 748's like CI who took 21 744F's, will it be worth some 748F's and some 777F's? Or maybe some 777's and use Atlas for 747 capacity?

ZK-NBT wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

The point of the 747-8 was the passenger version, that is dead. Regarding the 747--8F, there have been 86 ordered and 71 delivered. Is the market much bigger? There have been 126 747-400F delivered, big part of them still operational. How many civil freighters with the possibility of loading long pieces through a front door are needed? There are also AN-124 in operation. Than there are the 767-300F, the A330F, the 777F if you do not need to load long parts through the nose. The 747-8 line will finish the outstanding orders and than close down.

There were a lot more than 126 744F's built. Think 248 or so. Hopefully a few carriers will replace atleast some of their 744's with 748's like CI who took 21 744F's, will it be worth some 748F's and some 777F's? Or maybe some 777's and use Atlas for 747 capacity?

I cant be bothered to look up the numbers ordered, but I think many were ordered in an era prior to the advent of the 77W and sheer numbers of big twins. An airline like CI is a good example where the 77W can take so much freight on daily sched pax flights that there is less and less need for lift from dedicated freighters. The increased capabilities of the A350/330 & 787 too have a similar effect. A market like China which of course is a strong exporter of tech goods has grown hugely with homegrown airlines flying widebody twins, we now have over two dozen flights a day just to YVR that never existed before and as a result CX no longer offer dedicated cargo service. Another example is AC, they had dedicated freighters and wet lease agreements with Gemini and the like and ordered a bunch (5 IIIRC) 77F's with their initial 777 order. However, they soon converted them to more 77W's as they did not realize what a beast the 77W is and that it made the need for dedicated freighters redundant.

The AN124 is a unique aircraft and will always have a niche. The lift capacity of the 748 is huge, but even with a nose loader the ability to take real outsize cargo is limited to long thin things. Because of the cockpit and upper deck, plus the regular main deck floor, the actual height of the entrance to the hold is greatly restricted and items which could physically fit behind "the hump" in the main hold can not access it. Another issue is that the 747 needs ground equipment to unload. May not seem to be a big deal, but I remember I was going to send one somewhere in Mexico which I thought was a major enough airport, but could not as they did not have the scissor lifts to unload a 747. Therefore we ended up sending 2x IL76's instead, which of course (along with the AN124) are completely self sufficient at any remote airstrip with drive in in-built ramp access and internal gantry crane. So it is not as useful as you think, therefore the AN124 will always reign supreme, and a lesser extent the IL76 too. Also, a lot of this cargo was O&G related and that industry is hurting and economizing by using ocean wherever possible.

as I recall there are self contained nose and side door cargo loaders that unfold from the airframe.. maybe not all have them however the technology is there.

but more to the point, we have had similar threads every week or so for the last 3 years and none bring any new data or thoughts... so what's the point of reviewing the topic again and again. yes I could just skip them, however consider this as feed back.. Stop wasting time blathering away about events still years away especially since it appears the authors are too lazy to read last weeks thread let alone an historical sampling.

I doubt it. Boeing is buying back a lot of mid-life 747-400 passenger frames and converting them to freighters (or at least those that Kalitta Air isn't buying for parts). These will be sitting waiting for other 747-400s to run out of hours. Last year, CAL Cargo Airlines received a 747-400 that was stored in VCV for 4 years, delivered to CAL at JFK to pick up Israeli-bound cargo. That said, very few airlines need the front nose capability anymore and the 777F (and soon the 787-9F) will be better options.

excellent analysis here with charts, etc: https://seekingalpha.com/article/407703 ... boeing-747
His Conclusion

After careful study, I have come to the conclusion that the opportunities for the Boeing 747-8 as a replacement for the Boeing 747-400 are minimal, just like a role for the -8F as a replacement for the remaining -200/-300 freighters.

The dedicated Boeing freighter fleet is big, with over 150 units, but it is a young fleet which does not require replacement in the near future. Boeing is expecting that a replacement cycle will kick in by the end of the decade, which is somewhat supported by my projection that the converted freighters will be reaching their retirement age by the start of the next decade. New aircraft orders should follow towards the end of the decade, where Boeing could get roughly 40-45 orders from the replacement cycle, not accounting for any growth on the market.

One should be aware that this does not mean Boeing will be booking 40-45 orders in the coming years for its 747-8F. In terms of capacity and cost efficiency, the Boeing 777F better matches the converted freighter capabilities and likely offers good value to airlines. Additionally, the upcoming replacement cycle does not require an aircraft that can be loaded via the nose.

Despite the fact that my findings support Boeing's expectations of a new replacement cycle kicking in by the end of the decade, challenges remain for the Boeing 747-8F, especially if the cargo market does not see strong growth in demand.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

I doubt it. Boeing is buying back a lot of mid-life 747-400 passenger frames and converting them to freighters (or at least those that Kalitta Air isn't buying for parts). These will be sitting waiting for other 747-400s to run out of hours. Last year, CAL Cargo Airlines received a 747-400 that was stored in VCV for 4 years, delivered to CAL at JFK to pick up Israeli-bound cargo. That said, very few airlines need the front nose capability anymore and the 777F (and soon the 787-9F) will be better options.

Boeing isn't converting any 747-400s to freighters. Bedek is converting two of Asiana's combis (I believe one is completed) to full freight, but beyond that the -400BCF/BDSF is dead. The -400BCF isn't the preferred platform, particularly now that a number of 747-400F "factory freighters" are coming into the secondhand market. As for Kalitta, they have only purchased a single 747-400 in passenger configuration to use as a parts donor, and that was years ago now. Of course, it wouldn't surprise me if they did get their hands on a few in the coming months/years.

In the grander scheme, I'd also be surprised if K4 doesn't eventually have the 747-8F in the fleet. How that may transpire, I'm not sure yet, but the kind of specialized work they do really does call for it, perhaps more than almost any other carrier.

ZK-NBT wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

The point of the 747-8 was the passenger version, that is dead. Regarding the 747--8F, there have been 86 ordered and 71 delivered. Is the market much bigger? There have been 126 747-400F delivered, big part of them still operational. How many civil freighters with the possibility of loading long pieces through a front door are needed? There are also AN-124 in operation. Than there are the 767-300F, the A330F, the 777F if you do not need to load long parts through the nose. The 747-8 line will finish the outstanding orders and than close down.

There were a lot more than 126 744F's built. Think 248 or so. Hopefully a few carriers will replace atleast some of their 744's with 748's like CI who took 21 744F's, will it be worth some 748F's and some 777F's? Or maybe some 777's and use Atlas for 747 capacity?

I forgot the 40 747-400ERF, that makes it than 166. That is it. Not everyone bought for its front door. The 777F offers a similar lift capacity. The market is smaller than some people imagine.

jfk777 wrote:

Sadly after a strong launch order from LH for 20 748 planes follow on orders never came except from Air China & Korean Air.

Not entirely true: both Transaero and Arik Air ordered the 748i as well.

One went out of business before being able to take delivery, and the other converted theirs into 77W orders.

jfk777 wrote:

JAL & BA were also suppose to be targeted as potential launch customers but had no obligation to that aircraft, and eventually took a pass on it, like nearly everyone else.

FIFY

NameOmitted wrote:

Now that aircraft are fly-by-wire, how difficult would it be to eventually see a freighter company certify a swing-nose 777 for long/oversize freight? I'm talking maybe 6-10 aircraft total, not a production run.

It would be easier to have swing nose tail. You'd only need to worry about the empennage controls and some additional wires for aerials, lights. No engine controls, fuel controls. The APU would need to be either relocated or removed altogether. Removal is the easiest but you may have issues with ETOPS.

bug

69bug wrote:

NameOmitted wrote:

Now that aircraft are fly-by-wire, how difficult would it be to eventually see a freighter company certify a swing-nose 777 for long/oversize freight? I'm talking maybe 6-10 aircraft total, not a production run.

It would be easier to have swing nose tail. You'd only need to worry about the empennage controls and some additional wires for aerials, lights. No engine controls, fuel controls. The APU would need to be either relocated or removed altogether. Removal is the easiest but you may have issues with ETOPS.

bug

The point is that not all air freight is bulky. That is why 747 p2f exist and why freighters with side doors only like the 777F sell well and why more and more airfreight goes in the belly of passenger aircraft.
As it is there are 71 747-8, a big part of the 166 747-400F/ERF build, the AN-124 and quite a few (960 build) IL-76 and a few others available, if bulky freight has to be moved.

LAX772LR wrote:

jfk777 wrote:

Sadly after a strong launch order from LH for 20 748 planes follow on orders never came except from Air China & Korean Air.

Not entirely true: both Transaero and Arik Air ordered the 748i as well.

One went out of business before being able to take delivery, and the other converted theirs into 77W orders.

jfk777 wrote:

JAL & BA were also suppose to be targeted as potential launch customers but had no obligation to that aircraft, and eventually took a pass on it, like nearly everyone else.

FIFY

Actually, Arik Air converted its order to a 787-9. However, with Arik Air reduced to just a domestic and regional carrier, having surrendered its routes to New York, London, and Johannesburg, will those planes ever be taken up?

aemoreira1981 wrote:

Actually, Arik Air converted its order to a 787-9.

They converted them to 77W in November 2013, with the 789 conversion happening January 2017.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ar-403856/

LAX772LR wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

Actually, Arik Air converted its order to a 787-9.

They converted them to 77W in November 2013, with the 789 conversion happening January 2017.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ar-403856/

The conversion to the 77W never actually happened. The 747 order was only 'officially' cancelled on Boeing's order book earlier this year when they booked the 787 order.

But of course it was already pretty clear in 2014 that they would never take delivery of the 747 on order.


As for the future of the 747-8F. With the slow production rate you don't really need many orders to keep it alive for a couple of years. If UPS takes all 28, it's more then 4 years of production. Add some more for ABC and the AF1 replacements and it's already 2022. Eventually it depends on Boeing's accountants if the program stays alive, is it worth the losses to keep it afloat until the 747-400F replacement cycle or a 777XF.

Didn't UPS just buy up to 24 frames?

32andBelow wrote:

Didn't UPS just buy up to 24 frames?

14 firm, 14 options.

Dear all;

Is there any possibility for a 747-8 SP?

Just like the original 747SP, can Boeing take the 748, shorten it and extend the range to 11,000 Miles (LON-SYD) carrying 350 Passengers?

I mean, its such a great aircraft, has the best GENX engines and best fuel economy for its size and class

The 748 also avoids ETOPS restrictions so can fly directly to its destinations (probably shortening travel times and Mach .86 speed).

I'm also thinking of how Airbus is tweaking their older generation aircraft and getting more out of their planes (Think A330-800-900)

Thoughts?

69bug wrote:

NameOmitted wrote:

Now that aircraft are fly-by-wire, how difficult would it be to eventually see a freighter company certify a swing-nose 777 for long/oversize freight? I'm talking maybe 6-10 aircraft total, not a production run.

It would be easier to have swing nose tail. You'd only need to worry about the empennage controls and some additional wires for aerials, lights. No engine controls, fuel controls. The APU would need to be either relocated or removed altogether. Removal is the easiest but you may have issues with ETOPS.

bug

As far as i understand swing tails are pretty difficult to operate as you have to take into account winds during use. When parked the normal rudder already moves because of light winds. Imagine what happens to an open swing tail. I suppose operation would be pretty restricted.

africawings wrote:

Is there any possibility for a 747-8 SP?

No. The 747SP was more to compete with the L-1011 and DC-10 on capacity then it was on raw range. With the 777-300ER and 777-9 offering the capacity and the range already, there is no market for a shorter 747-8 that would only increase it's CASM.

KarelXWB wrote:

Surely there's still significant life left in the 747-8F?

That's what Boeing keeps telling but hasn't materialized so far. Couple issues are:

- More and more operators are moving to belly freight as plenty of 787s and A350s come online.
- Cargo yields are low, making the business case for an expensive dedicated freighter difficult.
- Oil is cheap, making second-hand freighters more attractive.
- Even if the above wouldn't apply, many 747s can by replaced by 777 freighters as some unique features are barely used.

There is the issue, belly freight. The new widebodies, including 77Ws, are combis. This includes the A359 and the 789. Cargo is being repackaged for the lower hold. Much of what I would have shipped main deck 15 to 20 years ago now breaks down to fit in the lower hold.

Combine this with that train from China to Europe... Less demand for main deck cargo.

Lightsaber

Stitch wrote:

africawings wrote:

Is there any possibility for a 747-8 SP?

No. The 747SP was more to compete with the L-1011 and DC-10 on capacity then it was on raw range. With the 777-300ER and 777-9 offering the capacity and the range already, there is no market for a shorter 747-8 that would only increase it's CASM.

I have to disagree with you here. From everything I have read (including Joe Sutter, who should qualify as the horse's mouth) the SP was built at the request of PA who wanted more range to reach places like Australia and New Zealand without having to make extra stops. It had nothing to do with the L-1011 or the DC-10. which did not even have the range of the 742. The SP was not competition for them because with 4 engines operating costs were much higher, and it only became worthwhile when you needed the range. Hence few (was it 58?) were sold. Of course once the 744 appeared the need for the SP disappeared, as it had more range.

Passenger 777-8 seems to be entering service in year 2020-2021 slightly after 777-9 and iirc it was said that after 777-8's EIS it could take as little as 18-24 months for them to start shipping the freighter version, so the competition against 747-8F isn't just 777F but also 777XF from a few years after

africawings wrote:

Dear all;

Is there any possibility for a 747-8 SP?

Thoughts?

Of course.
It's got two engines, folding wingtips and is called the 777-8.

africawings wrote:

The 748 also avoids ETOPS restrictions

Not anymore it doesnt

Perhaps, as a related fork on my previous question (thank you for the responses), the replacement for the nose-door will come when the military starts looking to replace the C-17 around 2030. The BC-17 was never offered, but it would have to compete with the nose-door (and ready logistics network) of the 747.

Perhaps the true end-of-the-line for the 747 will be a comercial version of the C-17 replacement after all the non-oversized cargo has gone to the 777.

Down the line the military will get some new blended wing body as a tanker and transport. This will be succeeding the C-17 not some 747.
However there are "too many" C-17 in the inventory and some are even parked unused.

Noshow wrote:

Down the line the military will get some new blended wing body as a tanker and transport. This will be succeeding the C-17 not some 747.
However there are "too many" C-17 in the inventory and some are even parked unused.

I should apparently not post before bedtime; I was apparently unclear. My suggestion was that a civilian version of the replacement for the C-17 would very possibly have the over-sized cargo capacity of the 747 nose door, making it a partial replacement for the 747 after 2030, with the rest of the fleet replaced by 777 freighters.

Why did Boeing not offer/consider a 777-300F (or did they...)?

Noshow wrote:

Down the line the military will get some new blended wing body as a tanker and transport. This will be succeeding the C-17 not some 747.
However there are "too many" C-17 in the inventory and some are even parked unused.

LOL! The military just ordered a boat load of 767s. It will be a century before they consider a freighter with a BWB.

redcap1962 wrote:

Why did Boeing not offer/consider a 777-300F (or did they...)?

They did not.

SEPilot wrote:

Stitch wrote:

africawings wrote:

Is there any possibility for a 747-8 SP?

No. The 747SP was more to compete with the L-1011 and DC-10 on capacity then it was on raw range. With the 777-300ER and 777-9 offering the capacity and the range already, there is no market for a shorter 747-8 that would only increase it's CASM.

I have to disagree with you here. From everything I have read (including Joe Sutter, who should qualify as the horse's mouth) the SP was built at the request of PA who wanted more range to reach places like Australia and New Zealand without having to make extra stops. It had nothing to do with the L-1011 or the DC-10. which did not even have the range of the 742. The SP was not competition for them because with 4 engines operating costs were much higher, and it only became worthwhile when you needed the range. Hence few (was it 58?) were sold. Of course once the 744 appeared the need for the SP disappeared, as it had more range.

The 747SP addressed two needs: the first was PA and IR's desire to serve JFK-THR and the second to offer a lower-capacity 747 model for airlines that didn't need the capacity of the 747-100 and were therefore looking at the DC-10 and L-1011. As you noted, the 747SP was generally uneconomical in comparison to the DC-10 and L-1011 (especially as fuel prices rose) and the airframe sold poorly - especially once longer-ranged versions of the DC-10 (-30/-40) and L-1011 (-500) became available that could handle the longer routes airlines were formerly flying the 747SP on.

c933103 wrote:

Passenger 777-8 seems to be entering service in year 2020-2021 slightly after 777-9 and iirc it was said that after 777-8's EIS it could take as little as 18-24 months for them to start shipping the freighter version, so the competition against 747-8F isn't just 777F but also 777XF from a few years after

In theory. But no appetite in Boeing to spend any money on new WB derivatives (or even completely new models) beyond what is currently committed to the 777 and 787. Talk yes. Senior management must first deliver on existing financial promises in relation to 777X and 787 families.
The 767 is probably Boeing's star performer financially, so discussing a possible replacement, or anything that detracts from further sales, seems very unlikely, just as Airbus are very careful to constrain A330 capability from impacting on A350 sales.

Planesmart wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Passenger 777-8 seems to be entering service in year 2020-2021 slightly after 777-9 and iirc it was said that after 777-8's EIS it could take as little as 18-24 months for them to start shipping the freighter version, so the competition against 747-8F isn't just 777F but also 777XF from a few years after

In theory. But no appetite in Boeing to spend any money on new WB derivatives (or even completely new models) beyond what is currently committed to the 777 and 787. Talk yes. Senior management must first deliver on existing financial promises in relation to 777X and 787 families.
The 767 is probably Boeing's star performer financially, so discussing a possible replacement, or anything that detracts from further sales, seems very unlikely, just as Airbus are very careful to constrain A330 capability from impacting on A350 sales.

A 767 replacement? It already exists...

Planesmart wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Passenger 777-8 seems to be entering service in year 2020-2021 slightly after 777-9 and iirc it was said that after 777-8's EIS it could take as little as 18-24 months for them to start shipping the freighter version, so the competition against 747-8F isn't just 777F but also 777XF from a few years after

In theory. But no appetite in Boeing to spend any money on new WB derivatives (or even completely new models) beyond what is currently committed to the 777 and 787. Talk yes. Senior management must first deliver on existing financial promises in relation to 777X and 787 families.

The 767 is probably Boeing's star performer financially, so discussing a possible replacement, or anything that detracts from further sales, seems very unlikely, just as Airbus are very careful to constrain A330 capability from impacting on A350 sales.

I have bolded the statement I am responding too: I disagree. Boeing will have to spend money towards new models or wide body replacements regardless of the existing financial performance of the current and in development 777 and 787 sub models. It is that or totally cede that market to Airbus in the future. Now, perhaps they do not need to do that for 5 years. But it will be a must by 10 years just for the sake of long term viability. Just because a model does not work out is not a reason to stop spending money to stay in a market. Imagine Ford Motor company stopping production of new models after the Edsel, or GM after the Vega, etc. R&D and new models is how you stay in business; and they can only live on the current models so long. If Boeing is not able to fund that in the future... then someone else will and they will get the market share as a result.

Have a great day,

Planesmart wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Passenger 777-8 seems to be entering service in year 2020-2021 slightly after 777-9 and iirc it was said that after 777-8's EIS it could take as little as 18-24 months for them to start shipping the freighter version, so the competition against 747-8F isn't just 777F but also 777XF from a few years after

In theory. But no appetite in Boeing to spend any money on new WB derivatives (or even completely new models) beyond what is currently committed to the 777 and 787. Talk yes. Senior management must first deliver on existing financial promises in relation to 777X and 787 families.
The 767 is probably Boeing's star performer financially, so discussing a possible replacement, or anything that detracts from further sales, seems very unlikely, just as Airbus are very careful to constrain A330 capability from impacting on A350 sales.

... It's just 777-8 but freighter? Does that count as new derivative? Surely it takes money to make the freighter version but is that amount that significant?

NameOmitted wrote:

Noshow wrote:

Down the line the military will get some new blended wing body as a tanker and transport. This will be succeeding the C-17 not some 747.
However there are "too many" C-17 in the inventory and some are even parked unused.

I should apparently not post before bedtime; I was apparently unclear. My suggestion was that a civilian version of the replacement for the C-17 would very possibly have the over-sized cargo capacity of the 747 nose door, making it a partial replacement for the 747 after 2030, with the rest of the fleet replaced by 777 freighters.

weren't the C17 significantly smaller than 747 in term of volume and max payload? And by searching online it seems like a civil version of C17 was once offered but have no takers due to An-124 being around

c933103 wrote:

NameOmitted wrote:

Noshow wrote:

Down the line the military will get some new blended wing body as a tanker and transport. This will be succeeding the C-17 not some 747.
However there are "too many" C-17 in the inventory and some are even parked unused.

I should apparently not post before bedtime; I was apparently unclear. My suggestion was that a civilian version of the replacement for the C-17 would very possibly have the over-sized cargo capacity of the 747 nose door, making it a partial replacement for the 747 after 2030, with the rest of the fleet replaced by 777 freighters.

weren't the C17 significantly smaller than 747 in term of volume and max payload? And by searching online it seems like a civil version of C17 was once offered but have no takers due to An-124 being around

The c17 is built for unimproved airports and short field performance. I don't even see how the 2 planes can compared. For really big stuff there is the C5 galaxy.

Difficult to believe that Boeing will be aggressive with a 778f. Two reasons; 1) their is no real competition in the segment 2) The production line will be 'light' pre-777X and 'constrained' post launch; price flexibility being a direct response, near-term orders management being an indirect market event. Couple this with 773 orders being converted to 77F as the passenger WB market softens and airlines address their order commitments.
Prognostication: There will be more time pressure on bringing a 789F to market as 1) 332 conversions increase, 2) Airbus threatens with a 332F neo.

amdiesen wrote:

Difficult to believe that Boeing will be aggressive with a 778f. Two reasons; 1) their is no real competition in the segment 2) The production line will be 'light' pre-777X and 'constrained' post launch; price flexibility being a direct response, near-term orders management being an indirect market event. Couple this with 773 orders being converted to 77F as the passenger WB market softens and airlines address their order commitments.
Prognostication: There will be more time pressure on bringing a 789F to market as 1) 332 conversions increase, 2) Airbus threatens with a 332F neo.

Are they still making old 777s after the EIS of 777X?