Guest

Boeing Failed To Sign SIA For 744XQLR Launch

Mon Sep 23, 2002 7:59 am

This was mentioned in Flight International's report on KAL (Korean Air)'s Aerospace department.

Boeing has sent back 12 KAL Aerospace department personnel because Boeing has failed to sign Singapore Airlines as the launch customer for B747-400XQLR.

Boeing is also delaying the 747 project as well. The article didn't mention Cathay Pacific, so I suppose CX is not going to sign any LoI for 744XQLR launch customer.
 
hkgspotter1
Posts: 5750
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 12:43 pm

RE: Boeing Failed To Sign SIA For 744XQLR Launch

Mon Sep 23, 2002 10:10 am

How many versions are there of the 744 ??

744
744(IGW) QF
744ER QF/AF
744XQLR !!
 
Sinlock
Posts: 1631
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2000 12:55 am

RE: Boeing Failed To Sign SIA For 744XQLR Launch

Mon Sep 23, 2002 10:50 am

I don't understand the title of the post. Your topic says SIA, but your information says KAL?

Flight International is known for posting rumors. Remember the "Fed Ex weeks from ordering BC-17" artical. I think that was in mid 2001. There a whole bunch.
 
cba
Posts: 4228
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2000 2:02 pm

RE: Boeing Failed To Sign SIA For 744XQLR Launch

Mon Sep 23, 2002 10:50 am

744IGW/744ER are the same plane.
 
hkgspotter1
Posts: 5750
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 12:43 pm

RE: Boeing Failed To Sign SIA For 744XQLR Launch

Mon Sep 23, 2002 10:57 am

NO, QF have three 744's that are IGW or whatever they are called VH-OJS VH-OJT and VH-OJU.
 
Guest

RE: Boeing Failed To Sign SIA For 744XQLR Launch

Mon Sep 23, 2002 11:13 am

I don't understand the title of the post. Your topic says SIA, but your information says KAL?

It's related to KAL because KAL Aerospace department is helping Boeing to launch the 744XQLR. These people were sent back because Boeing failed to sign Singapore Airlines as the launch customer.

 
cba
Posts: 4228
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2000 2:02 pm

RE: Boeing Failed To Sign SIA For 744XQLR Launch

Mon Sep 23, 2002 11:47 am

Boeing's website only mentions 3 744's: 744, 744ER, 744QLR. IGW means increased gross weight. The 744ER is just a 744 with an increased gross weight, allowing it to carry more fuel to fly further. Thus, the 744IGW is just another name for the 744ER. Just like the 777-200IGW is the 777-200ER.
 
tsentsan
Posts: 1921
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:48 pm

RE: Boeing Failed To Sign SIA For 744XQLR Launch

Mon Sep 23, 2002 12:30 pm

Daryl..

VH-OJU/S/T have the slightly uprated engines, or rather the slightly improved versions of the RB211-524G/H-T that allows a slightly higher MTOW then the standard RB211-524G that is in the rest of the QF fleet.

BA also has an uprated RB211, in the version of the RB211-524H2 and H3, while the original is an RB211-524H.

I dont think they would be considered an IGW though literally they are. They are basically the same aircraft inside out, all identical, except with higher powered engines thats all.

I'm sorry I dont have the exact power figures for them.

Regards
Tsentsan
NO URLS in signature
 
jmacias34
Posts: 363
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2000 10:50 am

RE: Boeing Failed To Sign SIA For 744XQLR Launch

Mon Sep 23, 2002 1:12 pm

You forgot the 747-400ALP
 
hkgspotter1
Posts: 5750
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 12:43 pm

RE: Boeing Failed To Sign SIA For 744XQLR Launch

Mon Sep 23, 2002 1:20 pm

Tsentsan,

Thank you, I understand but I'm sure at one time they called them IGW's. I'm getting confused with all these different versions and extra letters they are sticking on the end !!
 
United Airline
Posts: 8769
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:24 pm

RE: Boeing Failed To Sign SIA For 744XQLR Launch

Mon Sep 23, 2002 1:32 pm

let's just hope for the best....  Smile

hope SIA and CX will sign it..... eventually.
 
tsentsan
Posts: 1921
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:48 pm

RE: Boeing Failed To Sign SIA For 744XQLR Launch

Mon Sep 23, 2002 1:35 pm

Daryl -

No worries, you should see what people say about SIA 777s... its getting so irritating that people for calling the SRx SQx as ER versions....... extremely irritating, even after numerous explanations.
NO URLS in signature
 
Mr.BA
Posts: 3310
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2000 12:26 pm

RE: Boeing Failed To Sign SIA For 744XQLR Launch

Mon Sep 23, 2002 3:57 pm

How does one define a B777 as an ER version? If I'm not wrong the SQ, SR and SV have center fuel tanks which allows them to take on about 135 tons of fuel... not ER?
Boeing747 万岁!
 
United Airline
Posts: 8769
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:24 pm

RE: Boeing Failed To Sign SIA For 744XQLR Launch

Mon Sep 23, 2002 4:47 pm

And Bigo747, where did you get that article from?
 
godbless
Posts: 2680
Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2000 5:26 am

RE: Boeing Failed To Sign SIA For 744XQLR Launch

Mon Sep 23, 2002 4:58 pm

When will Boeing get their act together and move away from heating the 744 up in the microwave to see if anything changes and then offer it as a new 747. If they want to keep the 747 the queen of the skies they need to redesign the -400 and not only add a feature here and there. They havn't learned from the 743 and 764 at all... Either do a complete job or don't do it at all..
Max
 
na
Posts: 9155
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 1999 3:52 am

RE: Boeing Failed To Sign SIA For 744XQLR Launch

Mon Sep 23, 2002 7:05 pm

Guess I have to join you, Godbless.
It seems airlines want more than a refurbished 744.

Anyway sad to hear. It would have been good to hear something positive from the 747 this year.
 
United Airline
Posts: 8769
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:24 pm

RE: Boeing Failed To Sign SIA For 744XQLR Launch

Mon Sep 23, 2002 7:39 pm

It seems airlines want more than a refurbished 744.

Then why did the B 747X/X Stretch Fail?

Perhaps they should design a new wing
 
Joni
Posts: 2613
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 11:05 pm

RE: Boeing Failed To Sign SIA For 744XQLR Launch

Mon Sep 23, 2002 10:13 pm


United Airline,

The 747X / 747X Stretch failed because they couldn't compete with the 388. Apparently Boeing would need to update the 747 more comprehensively, or design an all-new plane. Of course accroding to their market forecasts, there is no market to justify an all-new plane so they're unlikely to do that.



 
SInGAPORE_AIR
Posts: 11619
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2000 4:06 am

RE: Boeing Failed To Sign SIA For 744XQLR Launch

Tue Sep 24, 2002 12:14 am

That's a shame. I really wanted the 747-400XQLR more than the Airbus A345.

Maybe the XQLR was too big and could carry too many people?

I don't think we'll know the reason why Singapore Airlines didn't choose it  Sad
Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
 
manni
Posts: 4049
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 1:48 am

RE: Boeing Failed To Sign SIA For 744XQLR Launch

Tue Sep 24, 2002 12:30 am

Sure we now the reason Sigapore_Air,
SIA decided that the aircraft did not fit in their fleet or that they had a much better alternative. It's that simple.  Big grin
SUPPORT THE LEBANESE CIVILIANS
 
United Airline
Posts: 8769
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:24 pm

RE: Boeing Failed To Sign SIA For 744XQLR Launch

Tue Sep 24, 2002 12:37 am

I think SQ might order it when it comes to a point that a large number of B 747-400s need to be replaced.
 
captainAD
Posts: 71
Joined: Tue May 29, 2001 11:01 am

RE: Boeing Failed To Sign SIA For 744XQLR Launch

Tue Sep 24, 2002 1:04 am

Thank you for your post Manni... without you we may have never been able to figure out that SIA made the decision because "the aircraft did not fit in their fleet or that they had a much better alternative." Very insightful  Insane
 
Navion
Posts: 1052
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 1:52 am

Joni

Tue Sep 24, 2002 2:49 am

Joni, Well put. Boeing does feel the market is somewhat limited. If Boeing offers something to compete with the A388, both will lose money. The A388's sold so far have been at fire sale rates (a fact discussed openly in FI and AW&ST) so Airbus really has to sell about 500-600 more of these beasts at retail prices to justify the $12-$16 billion investment. There is no room for Boeing to try to make a VLA to compete with Airbus.
 
manni
Posts: 4049
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 1:48 am

RE: Boeing Failed To Sign SIA For 744XQLR Launch

Tue Sep 24, 2002 6:28 am

CaptainAD,

Any time! Big grin

Navion,

I believe that it was mentioned before that Airbus had to sell about 250 to 300 aircraft to justify the investment.
SUPPORT THE LEBANESE CIVILIANS
 
Mr.BA
Posts: 3310
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2000 12:26 pm

RE: Boeing Failed To Sign SIA For 744XQLR Launch

Tue Sep 24, 2002 7:37 am

It's not necessary to replace a B747 with a B747  Big grin
Boeing747 万岁!
 
sllevin
Posts: 3312
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 1:57 pm

RE: Boeing Failed To Sign SIA For 744XQLR Launch

Tue Sep 24, 2002 7:47 am

Manni,

I believe that 250-300 is the current official breakeven number right now. However, historically, that number always rises. And it has often risen dramatically as a percentage figure...

While I don't know that I'd bet on 600 being the breakeven figure, I'd be willing to bet that 300 airframes doesn't hold either.  Smile

Steve
 
Guest

RE: Boeing Failed To Sign SIA For 744XQLR Launch

Tue Sep 24, 2002 8:33 am

United Airline:

Please read the first message I put about where I get this article. It's Sep 10-16, 2002 edition.
 
Navion
Posts: 1052
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 1:52 am

Manni

Tue Sep 24, 2002 10:50 am

Manni, The first 100 are being sold for a hell of a lot less than "list" prices. The question you need to ask yourself is "How much money needs to be made on a (minimum) $12 Billion investment by Airbus to pay back that investment as well as pay the debt service on the money?". First of all, the debt service alone at only 5% interest is $600 million a year before dime one is spent on labor, materials, physical plant etc. That is the same value as the price of 3 A380's A YEAR based on "list" prices (I say "list" because neither you, me, nor anyone else has any idea what Airbus' list price or actual costs are but that's a debate for another time). If each A380 only cost $150 million to build and was sold at a $50 million per plane profit, then it would take 240 airframes just to pay back principal without any debt service (i.e. interest). At $50,000,000 per plane profit (a dubious figure at best), they would have to sell an additional 6 airframes PER YEAR just to pay the debt service before paying down any principal. On top of that, in order to be commercially viable, there has to be a return on investment which is comparable to competing industries in order to attract capital. Assuming only a 5% return on investment (once again I'm being very generous to Airbus) adds another 4-6 airframes per year BEFORE paying interest and BEFORE paying down the debt. Needless to say, that adds up to many dozens of aircraft over the life of the program in addition to the 240 needed just to pay principal. The bottom line? Airbus had better start selling these planes for list price (which they have not done) and they had better get list price on at least 500 of them or the European taxpayer will be subsidizing this line. That's where the 500 aircraft figure came from. I think Airbus 250 plane figure is a joke.
 
SailorOrion
Posts: 1959
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2001 5:56 pm

RE: Boeing Failed To Sign SIA For 744XQLR Launch

Tue Sep 24, 2002 4:35 pm

Boeing predicts a market for 900 units of 747 or larger in size in the next 20 years. Navion, I agree with your analysis, but I think of a number of around 400 units which have to be sold. Ok, if Airbus captures 50% of the market that exists (according to Boeing, of course is Airbus' market prediction much higher, 1600 units), they will sell 450 units in 20 years, so they will be around break-even.

SailorOrion
 
9v-svc
Posts: 1703
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2001 5:19 pm

RE: Boeing Failed To Sign SIA For 744XQLR Launch

Tue Sep 24, 2002 4:40 pm

I am not surprise with SQ's decisions especially with lack of commitment from other airlines as well . I would love to see SQ buying both A345 and B744QXLR but that will never happen . Nevertheless , I am looking forward to see SQ 's A340-500 next year .
Airliners is the wings of my life.
 
Joni
Posts: 2613
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 11:05 pm

RE: Boeing Failed To Sign SIA For 744XQLR Launch

Tue Sep 24, 2002 6:43 pm

Airbus is also using their cashflow to pay for A380 development, and withdrawing credits as they're needed, i.e. not all up front.

Also, the first 50 planes were sold at launch discounts, but the more recent 50 or so were sold (according to industry sources) at higher prices since Airbus no longer needed them to launch the plane. Of course, I'm not privy to knowing any prices on contracts or estimates on how much it will cost to build these planes.

The 250 break-even figure, I think, is a dynamic figure that takes into account profits from planes Airbus can sell as side orders to the A380 that they otherwise might not be able to sell.

 
manni
Posts: 4049
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 1:48 am

RE: Boeing Failed To Sign SIA For 744XQLR Launch

Tue Sep 24, 2002 9:58 pm

Sllevin,

Thanks for cnfirming that it's the OFFICIAL number.

Navion,

I'm in no position to make a forecast about the possible number of A380's that have to be sold in order to justify the project, neither are you I guess. I wrote down what I read about it. You can argue about it, but it wont change the official number.
SUPPORT THE LEBANESE CIVILIANS
 
United Airline
Posts: 8769
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:24 pm

RE: Boeing Failed To Sign SIA For 744XQLR Launch

Tue Sep 24, 2002 10:16 pm

I am not surprise with SQ's decisions especially with lack of commitment from other airlines as well . I would love to see SQ buying both A345 and B744QXLR but that will never happen . Nevertheless , I am looking forward to see SQ 's A340-500 next year .

Never say never! When it comes to replacement of their current B 747-400 Fleet, they might order the B 747-400QLR, since they have a large B 747-400 Fleet and it fits in nicely between the A 380 (Used on selected routes), as well as the A 340-500.

What about JAL? They might be interested in the B 747-400QLR as well. In fact they are.  Smile

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: alski, Andy33, ba319-131, Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot], cougar15, dk44, Fedupjohn, hayzel777, hkcanadaexpat, jupiter2, KarelXWB, klwright69, Rdeggendorfer, sassiciai, speedygonzales, starbucks, theobcman, Thule, VSMUT and 232 guests