User avatar
ER757
Topic Author
Posts: 2426
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 10:16 am

Randy T Says 748-F Better Than Expected

Wed Apr 04, 2012 7:30 pm

From his blog today

http://boeingblogs.com/randy/

Good news for the program, it seems
 
User avatar
garpd
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:29 am

RE: Randy T Says 748-F Better Than Expected

Wed Apr 04, 2012 7:35 pm

PR BS or truth?

Anyone with airline ops exposure care to comment?
arpdesign.wordpress.com
 
Ronaldo747
Posts: 272
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 4:58 pm

RE: Randy T Says 748-F Better Than Expected

Wed Apr 04, 2012 7:41 pm

Quoting garpd (Reply 1):
PR BS or truth?

Anyone with airline ops exposure care to comment?

Take a look at pprune.org it seems to be right.
 
4holer
Posts: 2724
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2002 1:47 am

RE: Randy T Says 748-F Better Than Expected

Wed Apr 04, 2012 7:48 pm

Quoting ER757 (Thread starter):
From his blog today

I'm 46 years old, and I still chuckle to myself when I see the name of the guy who just signed the 1000th airworthiness certificate for the 777...  

I'm actually surprised that the B748F is exceeding goals. Which I weren't now trained to be so skeptical of what they say anymore...
Ghosts appear and fade away.....................
 
User avatar
rotating14
Posts: 1103
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 11:54 pm

RE: Randy T Says 748-F Better Than Expected

Wed Apr 04, 2012 7:49 pm

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/new...h-six-months-in-service-2012-04-04

Hello,

Here is some validation of that the program is going smoothly and performing up to par or beyond.
 
User avatar
garpd
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:29 am

RE: Randy T Says 748-F Better Than Expected

Wed Apr 04, 2012 7:50 pm

Quoting 4holer (Reply 3):

I'm 46 years old, and I still chuckle to myself when I see the name of the guy who just signed the 1000th airworthiness certificate for the 777...

Do share, do share
arpdesign.wordpress.com
 
mffoda
Posts: 1017
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:09 pm

RE: Randy T Says 748-F Better Than Expected

Wed Apr 04, 2012 7:59 pm

Quoting garpd (Reply 1):
PR BS or truth?

Anyone with airline ops exposure care to comment?

Here's one from ABC...

"We're so excited to take this airplane,” said Tatyana Arslanova, executive president, AirBridgeCargo Airlines. “We have been very pleased with the performance of our first 747-8 Freighter, and we are eager to have the second join our fleet."

http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=2194
harder than woodpecker lips...
 
User avatar
Francoflier
Posts: 3690
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 12:27 pm

RE: Randy T Says 748-F Better Than Expected

Wed Apr 04, 2012 8:14 pm

Quoting Ronaldo747 (Reply 2):
Take a look at pprune.org it seems to be right.

I doubt you'll find any less biased information in there than here, to be honest.
The true picture of the aircraft's performance will be painted by the operators and the order book, as usual.

There's no reason it will be bad though. It was developed off an excellent platform and it will only get better with time.
I'll do my own airline. With Blackjack. And hookers. In fact, forget the airline.
 
CM
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 4:17 am

RE: Randy T Says 748-F Better Than Expected

Wed Apr 04, 2012 8:16 pm

Quoting garpd (Reply 1):
PR BS or truth?

Cathay reported publicly (Australian Aviation Magazine, IIRC) that fuel burn on their freighters is better than spec. Apparently enough better they were anticipating Boeing would need to release a FMC software roll in order to more closely reflect actual fuel burn in the performance tool.
 
PIEAvantiP180
Posts: 485
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 6:04 am

RE: Randy T Says 748-F Better Than Expected

Wed Apr 04, 2012 8:26 pm

So if they are beating expectations by a full percentage point now, i'm sure with the engine PIP coming from GE and weight reductions due from Boeing, later models will see another 1-3% improvement on top of what they have now. That should make the 747F and i that much more desirable to have. Hope this entices follow up orders from existing customers and new ones from those who have not signed up for one yet.
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: Randy T Says 748-F Better Than Expected

Wed Apr 04, 2012 8:26 pm

Quoting francoflier (Reply 7):

I doubt you'll find any less biased information in there than here, to be honest.
The true picture of the aircraft's performance will be painted by the operators and the order book, as usual.

I agree that it is very bias coming directly from him, but the order book right now likely does not necessarily reflect the airplane. Air Cargo is way down, so the market for freighters has shrunk. Very few airlines right now are ordering freighters at all.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
eaa3
Posts: 800
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:49 am

RE: Randy T Says 748-F Better Than Expected

Wed Apr 04, 2012 8:32 pm

Quoting garpd (Reply 5):
Do share, do share

His name is Dick Bender.
 
User avatar
Francoflier
Posts: 3690
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 12:27 pm

RE: Randy T Says 748-F Better Than Expected

Wed Apr 04, 2012 8:53 pm

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 10):
but the order book right now likely does not necessarily reflect the airplane.

Actually, when I mentioned orders, I meant follow up orders, and I also believe the 748F did very good on sales so far.
In a difficult cargo market, it has proven that airlines still swear by the 747 when it comes to hauling boxes. And the noise so far does seem to be on the positive side regarding reliability and performance.

However I don't know the details and I did hear about payload/range performance shortfalls at first but I don't know how that translated to real life either.

The fact is: it's burning as much or less than a 744 for more payload, and since most operators are also 744 users, they can't feel unhappy about that!
I'll do my own airline. With Blackjack. And hookers. In fact, forget the airline.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Randy T Says 748-F Better Than Expected

Wed Apr 04, 2012 8:59 pm

Quoting garpd (Reply 1):

It's no longer about marketing promises or some rigged comparison between competitors, but in service performance. For Randy to claim something false would be stupid.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
nomadd22
Posts: 1566
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:42 pm

RE: Randy T Says 748-F Better Than Expected

Wed Apr 04, 2012 9:00 pm

Wouldn't 12,000 lb higher GTW cut the payload gap between the 748 and the A380 in half? Or was that increase only for the F?
Anon
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13754
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Randy T Says 748-F Better Than Expected

Wed Apr 04, 2012 9:08 pm

Quoting 4holer (Reply 3):
I'm 46 years old, and I still chuckle to myself when I see the name of the guy who just signed the 1000th airworthiness certificate for the 777...
Quoting garpd (Reply 5):
Do share, do share

Randy sez:

Quote:

Boeing employee Dick Bender seems to have special relationship with the number 1,000. His job is to sign the certificate of airworthiness on our airplanes. He did just that for the 1,000th 777—as well as the 1,000th 747 in 1993 and the 1,000th 767 in 2011.

Bender joined Boeing in 1957 and guesses that he’s signed the final delivery document for a couple hundred airplanes. When his co-workers discovered that he’d signed for the 1,000th 747, they gave him the honor of signing the 1,000th 767’s final paperwork. So it was only fitting that he sign the 1,000th 777 paperwork too.

Damn, giggly name or not, if that's correct, the guy's been with Boeing for 55 years!
Inspiration, move me brightly!
 
User avatar
garpd
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:29 am

RE: Randy T Says 748-F Better Than Expected

Wed Apr 04, 2012 9:29 pm

Quoting mffoda (Reply 6):

Thanks. Good news then  
Quoting CM (Reply 8):

Hadn't caught that. Excellent.

Quoting eaa3 (Reply 11):

HAHAHAHAHA, seriously?!

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 13):

I was just being cautious. But so far, the evidence supports Randy's claims.
All the better for Boeing.  
arpdesign.wordpress.com
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2152
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: Randy T Says 748-F Better Than Expected

Wed Apr 04, 2012 10:07 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 15):
Damn, giggly name or not, if that's correct, the guy's been with Boeing for 55 years!

He would be one of those guys who's "paying Boeing to work here" (would be earning more money retired than working) . . . or so they say.   

I've met two or three of those guys. My father in law in Everett told me about a gal who makes more money through interest, and stock dividend than her salary at one of Boeing's shop . . . but she's working on . . . into her 80's. They say that she goes to the share holder meeting in a limosine  Wow!

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 4920
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: Randy T Says 748-F Better Than Expected

Wed Apr 04, 2012 10:21 pm

Quoting CM (Reply 8):
Cathay reported publicly (Australian Aviation Magazine, IIRC) that fuel burn on their freighters is better than spec.

Interesting. That clashes with the viewpoint expressed by a Cathay pilot who is prominent on this forum, who complained that the aircraft wasn't meeting promised payload-range because of high fuel burn.

It's nice, but I'm not sure that a 1% improvement is something that can change the disadvantage the passenger 748 currently suffers compared to the 388.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Randy T Says 748-F Better Than Expected

Wed Apr 04, 2012 10:24 pm

Just 6 months ago everyone was saying the B-747-8F wasn't meeting specs. Even Cargolux delayed their first delivery with a dog and pony show.

But, now that CX has some B-747-8 initial numbers I am wondering if it will help them consider the B-747-8I, over the A-380, when they order their VLA.
 
johnclipper
Posts: 462
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 5:44 am

RE: Randy T Says 748-F Better Than Expected

Wed Apr 04, 2012 11:10 pm

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 18):
Interesting. That clashes with the viewpoint expressed by a Cathay pilot who is prominent on this forum, who complained that the aircraft wasn't meeting promised payload-range because of high fuel burn.

It's funny, I have heard the opposite from another Cathay pilot...
"Flown every aircraft since the Wright Flyer" (guys, if you take this literally, then you need to get a life...)
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Randy T Says 748-F Better Than Expected

Wed Apr 04, 2012 11:11 pm

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 18):

That should explain why I dismiss most of the claims made by that member. It's 77W v A346 all over again.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11735
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Randy T Says 748-F Better Than Expected

Wed Apr 04, 2012 11:36 pm

From the link: And in every category - from in-service reliability, to fuel burn, to payload capability - the 747-8F is performing as well or better than we predicted.

While good news, it should say 'better than we promised.'

While this is great news, 'dispatch reliability targets' for year one are not the same as for a mature airframe.  


All of that said, I hope this means that the 748I proves to be a popular airframe.

Quoting PIEAvantiP180 (Reply 9):
i'm sure with the engine PIP coming from GE and weight reductions due from Boeing, later models will see another 1-3% improvement on top of what they have now. That should make the 747F and i that much more desirable to have. Hope this entices follow up orders from existing customers and new ones from those who have not signed up for one yet.

The PIPs will come down the line, if only because the 787 direly needs them and the 748 will get them as a 'side effect.'

I hope the ol' Queen of the skies has enough life left to sell over a hundred passenger models. That is the minimum number for myself to have a good chance of flying one.    Well, I have a better chance, depending on what LH sends to LAX.   

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
cosmofly
Posts: 195
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 3:36 pm

RE: Randy T Says 748-F Better Than Expected

Wed Apr 04, 2012 11:51 pm

Quoting Ronaldo747 (Reply 2):
Take a look at pprune.org it seems to be right.
http://www.pprune.org/freight-dogs/4...7085-747-8f-does-match-hype-2.html
"Most importantly......it makes money.
I've been flying it since November and it's burning 2-3% less fuel than Mr Boeing promised...and its my understanding that Boeing are taking more weight out of it?"
 
mham001
Posts: 4180
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:52 am

RE: Randy T Says 748-F Better Than Expected

Thu Apr 05, 2012 12:09 am

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 17):


I've met two or three of those guys. My father in law in Everett told me about a gal who makes more money through interest, and stock dividend than her salary at one of Boeing's shop . . . but she's working on . . . into her 80's. They say that she goes to the share holder meeting in a limosine  

My father worked for 51 years at Boeing and ended up a millionaire. Never did make management.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3642
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: Randy T Says 748-F Better Than Expected

Thu Apr 05, 2012 1:23 am

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 17):
My father in law in Everett told me about a gal who makes more money through interest, and stock dividend than her salary at one of Boeing's shop . . . but she's working on . . . into her 80's. They say that she goes to the share holder meeting in a limosine

It's true.. Thai she used to work in the Delivery center.. There's another that installs blankets in the 737,
 
Nicoeddf
Posts: 509
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:13 am

RE: Randy T Says 748-F Better Than Expected

Thu Apr 05, 2012 7:02 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):
But, now that CX has some B-747-8 initial numbers I am wondering if it will help them consider the B-747-8I, over the A-380, when they order their VLA.

Which is in this thread of course your only concern!  
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 22):
All of that said, I hope this means that the 748I proves to be a popular airframe.

But yes indeed, that is what I am hoping for, too!

Good for Boeing and their customers (at least for the -F variant) and truly another nice achievement from the fellow Seattle engineers.
 
CX Flyboy
Posts: 6007
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 1999 6:10 pm

RE: Randy T Says 748-F Better Than Expected

Thu Apr 05, 2012 9:17 am

Quoting johnclipper (Reply 20):
Quoting seabosdca (Reply 18):
Interesting. That clashes with the viewpoint expressed by a Cathay pilot who is prominent on this forum, who complained that the aircraft wasn't meeting promised payload-range because of high fuel burn.

Presumably the same CX pilot who posts prominently on this forum who is very pro-Airbus and anti-Boeing?
 
Daysleeper
Posts: 565
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009 3:33 pm

RE: Randy T Says 748-F Better Than Expected

Thu Apr 05, 2012 9:49 am

What I’m a little confused about is what expectations it has bettered, as didn’t Boeing “revise” what was to be expected due to under-performing engines and the frame being over-weight?
 
airproxx
Posts: 406
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:07 pm

RE: Randy T Says 748-F Better Than Expected

Thu Apr 05, 2012 10:04 am

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 18):

Interesting. That clashes with the viewpoint expressed by a Cathay pilot who is prominent on this forum, who complained that the aircraft wasn't meeting promised payload-range because of high fuel burn.

If this guy takes fuel for 2hours holding every time he flies, for sure he will find his plane doesn't meet expectations... But it will happen on every plane he flies!!
  
If you can meet with triumph and disaster, and treat those two impostors just the same
 
User avatar
Focker
Posts: 131
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 8:37 pm

RE: Randy T Says 748-F Better Than Expected

Thu Apr 05, 2012 11:14 am

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 28):
What I’m a little confused about is what expectations it has bettered, as didn’t Boeing “revise” what was to be expected due to under-performing engines and the frame being over-weight?

Without being biased this is definitely the thing I am interested in. Better than what prediction?
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Randy T Says 748-F Better Than Expected

Thu Apr 05, 2012 12:26 pm

Quoting nicoeddf (Reply 26):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):But, now that CX has some B-747-8 initial numbers I am wondering if it will help them consider the B-747-8I, over the A-380, when they order their VLA.
Which is in this thread of course your only concern!

That is true, but isn't CX one of the next airlines expected to order new VLAs?
 
na
Posts: 9129
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 1999 3:52 am

RE: Randy T Says 748-F Better Than Expected

Thu Apr 05, 2012 12:32 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 31):
That is true, but isn't CX one of the next airlines expected to order new VLAs?

Yes, its high time for them if they want A380s. If they choose the 748I though they´ll still be on time to receive them as replacements for their aging 744 fleet which were all built between 1989 - 94.
 
CX Flyboy
Posts: 6007
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 1999 6:10 pm

RE: Randy T Says 748-F Better Than Expected

Thu Apr 05, 2012 12:49 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 31):
That is true, but isn't CX one of the next airlines expected to order new VLAs?

A recent magazine article quoted CX's CEO as saying "Later this year" they will have another look at ordering VLAs. Pretty vague but something to go on.
 
jonathan-l
Posts: 394
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 4:20 am

RE: Randy T Says 748-F Better Than Expected

Thu Apr 05, 2012 1:04 pm

"Better than expected"... but where is the reference?
The MTOW is a full 13 tonnes higher than when the 747-8F was first marketed, with insignificant payload range improvement, which means that most of that weight increase is to cover higher than "expected" empty weight.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...eases-747-8-family-weights-367030/

So the 747-8F may be marginally better than what Boeing expected it to be six months ago when Atlas Air rejected the first three aircraft it had on order (any idea by the way where these aircraft are going?) but it certainly can't be better than what Boeing had expected it to be four years ago.

As far as customer quotes, you will hardly ever hear a CEO who made a multi-billion dollar investment in an aircraft type say "We f***ed up, this aircraft is no good and we're plane-disappointed", especially if some sort of compensation is involved.
 
CX Flyboy
Posts: 6007
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 1999 6:10 pm

RE: Randy T Says 748-F Better Than Expected

Thu Apr 05, 2012 1:12 pm

Quoting jonathan-l (Reply 34):
So the 747-8F may be marginally better than what Boeing expected it to be six months ago when Atlas Air rejected the first three aircraft it had on order

There is speculation that the excuses given by Atlas as to the cancellation of those 748Fs were simply excuses in an economic climate where those new planes were simply not needed. Below-par performance and delivery delays were the perfect excuse to wriggle out of their commitment.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Randy T Says 748-F Better Than Expected

Thu Apr 05, 2012 1:12 pm

Quoting na (Reply 32):
If they choose the 748I though they´ll still be on time to receive them as replacements for their aging 744 fleet which were all built between 1989 - 94.
Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 33):
A recent magazine article quoted CX's CEO as saying "Later this year" they will have another look at ordering VLAs. Pretty vague but something to go on.

Well, CX has about 20 B-747-467s then that will need replacing, the oldest being about 23 years old now. If they ordered 20 B-747-867Is they could have the first one a little over 2 years after they place an order.

Doesn't CX also still have about 10 A-343s that need replacing, too? Or are those already scheduled to be replaced by the A-359s and B-77Ws?
 
CX Flyboy
Posts: 6007
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 1999 6:10 pm

RE: Randy T Says 748-F Better Than Expected

Thu Apr 05, 2012 1:22 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 36):
Well, CX has about 20 B-747-467s then that will need replacing, the oldest being about 23 years old now. If they ordered 20 B-747-867Is they could have the first one a little over 2 years after they place an order.

Doesn't CX also still have about 10 A-343s that need replacing, too? Or are those already scheduled to be replaced by the A-359s and B-77Ws?

Aircraft purchase plans are very fluid. The strategy these last few years that CX have made public, is to fly more frequent services with smaller aircraft. Over the last few years, a few aircraft have been retired (A346s, a couple of 744s, four A343s) but 26 777-300ERs and several A330s have been delivered. The 744s were all supposed to have left by this year according to plans drawn up afew years back but high demand means that only two 744 passenger aircraft have been retired thus far. The overall strategy has not changed and more frequent services is still the goal. We currently have the 2nd largest 777-300ER fleet in the world and have nearly 30 more on order. Some of these will be replacing the 744s as they are eventually retired (By 2017 is the latest). The A340-300s will all be gone shortly after that. By then, all the 77Ws on order will be here and the first few A358s will be around as well.

CX probably does need larger aircraft. The 77W with the new 4 class config only carries around 275 and although the 3 class one carries a bit more, there is demand in the network in both long and shorthaul for more capacity. Whatever VLA is chosen, I would be very very surprised if they order them as a one-for-one replacement to the 744s. Instead I expect to see a smaller fleet of perhaps 10 aircraft filling a niche need within the CX network.
 
na
Posts: 9129
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 1999 3:52 am

RE: Randy T Says 748-F Better Than Expected

Thu Apr 05, 2012 1:33 pm

Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 37):
Over the last few years, a few aircraft have been retired (A346s, a couple of 744s, four A343s)

Most 744s being "retired" so far were BCFs which now are flying for Air China. Which is the second pax-aircraft they retired? Must have been very recently.

Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 37):
Whatever VLA is chosen, I would be very very surprised if they order them as a one-for-one replacement to the 744s.

I do not expect that, too, but I think they´ll go and buy about a dozen for the main routes easily filling a 744 and requiring more than a 77W, or requiring something better to stand the competition. LHR, maybe FRA among them.
 
Daysleeper
Posts: 565
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009 3:33 pm

RE: Randy T Says 748-F Better Than Expected

Thu Apr 05, 2012 1:34 pm

Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 35):
There is speculation that the excuses given by Atlas as to the cancellation of those 748Fs were simply excuses in an economic climate where those new planes were simply not needed. Below-par performance and delivery delays were the perfect excuse to wriggle out of their commitment.

Was that the case with Cargolux too? I guess it would make sense that if the freight market was down then none of the operators would want to invest in more capacity.

Quoting Focker (Reply 30):
Without being biased this is definitely the thing I am interested in. Better than what prediction?

I’ve been searching for a while to try and find out what figures they are actually referencing, so far no luck at all.
 
Nicoeddf
Posts: 509
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:13 am

RE: Randy T Says 748-F Better Than Expected

Thu Apr 05, 2012 1:36 pm

Quoting jonathan-l (Reply 34):
So the 747-8F may be marginally better than what Boeing expected it to be six months ago when Atlas Air rejected the first three aircraft it had on order (any idea by the way where these aircraft are going?) but it certainly can't be better than what Boeing had expected it to be four years ago.

Indeed.

If the 748I is anything to go by as comparison to the freighter, fuel burn for the -2B is several percent below spec and promise according to my information. The engine is the same on -F and -I, so "if" the 748 as performance package is better than anticipated that means

a) that the aircraft outperfoms spec (whichever spec from whichever point in time that is)
b) that the frame overcompensates for the engine (which wouldn't be the first time Boeing delivers a splendid wing)
c) that there is room with the upcoming and promised PIPs to close the gap on fuel burn and further strengthen the performance of the aircraft

Bring it on, Cincinatti.
 
CX Flyboy
Posts: 6007
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 1999 6:10 pm

RE: Randy T Says 748-F Better Than Expected

Thu Apr 05, 2012 1:42 pm

Quoting na (Reply 38):
Which is the second pax-aircraft they retired? Must have been very recently.

B-HKE left the fleet to fly for Orient Thai and B-HOO was scrapped last year in VCV.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 39):
I guess it would make sense that if the freight market was down then none of the operators would want to invest in more capacity.

Every carrier is different. For CX, the freight market is a very important one. The airline is cash rich (relatively) and has invested a lot of money in a new CX-owned cargo terminal in HKG. The BCFs in the fleet are leaving to Air China Cargo and Air Hong Kong and need to be replaced so the 748Fs are needed. Perhaps for Atlas, they were eyeing the 748Fs as vehicles for growth of their business and simply with the US economy as it is, did not see the need for them, especially as the 2nd hand market for 744Fs is down at the moment meaning they might have had trouble selling them for a decent price. Again, just speculation.
 
na
Posts: 9129
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 1999 3:52 am

RE: Randy T Says 748-F Better Than Expected

Thu Apr 05, 2012 1:51 pm

Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 35):
There is speculation that the excuses given by Atlas as to the cancellation of those 748Fs were simply excuses in an economic climate where those new planes were simply not needed.

As much as I know it has been confirmed that this played a major role, it wasnt just a rumour. Atlas did get the 3 744Fs back from BA, and they received 2 744BCFs recently. They have retired very little in the past 12 months, just one 743SF as I remember. They still have four or so 742Fs which are older than 30 years, but I assume those will be replaced one by one by the 748Fs coming in soon.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22931
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Randy T Says 748-F Better Than Expected

Thu Apr 05, 2012 2:08 pm

Even if it's not as good as originally projected, the reports of double-digits reductions in fuel burn and increases in payload compared to the 747-400F still must be something to celebrate as a 747-8F operator.
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: Randy T Says 748-F Better Than Expected

Thu Apr 05, 2012 3:09 pm

Quoting jonathan-l (Reply 34):
As far as customer quotes, you will hardly ever hear a CEO who made a multi-billion dollar investment in an aircraft type say "We f***ed up, this aircraft is no good and we're plane-disappointed", especially if some sort of compensation is involved.

An airplane really has to fall short for that to happen. However CX kind of did that with the A346s.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
trex8
Posts: 4576
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: Randy T Says 748-F Better Than Expected

Thu Apr 05, 2012 5:33 pm

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 44):
An airplane really has to fall short for that to happen. However CX kind of did that with the A346s.

They leased 3 for a few years, before 77Ws were available, and found out later the 77W was better for them though by all accounts the A346 did exactly as CX wanted of it, hardly a f... up.
 
User avatar
solnabo
Posts: 5005
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:53 am

RE: Randy T Says 748-F Better Than Expected

Thu Apr 05, 2012 5:46 pm

A340 league:

340-200
340-200F
340-300
340-500
340-600

B777 league:

772A
773A
772ER
773ER
772L
772F

Did I miss any ?

//Mike   
Airbus SAS - Love them both
 
User avatar
solnabo
Posts: 5005
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:53 am

RE: Randy T Says 748-F Better Than Expected

Thu Apr 05, 2012 5:54 pm

Sheiz, it should be 340-200, the freighter version is 332F

Mea Culpa
Airbus SAS - Love them both
 
trex8
Posts: 4576
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: Randy T Says 748-F Better Than Expected

Thu Apr 05, 2012 5:54 pm

Quoting solnabo (Reply 46):
340-200F

an A340 freighter?? maybe one day but not yet!
 
User avatar
glideslope
Posts: 1422
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 8:06 pm

RE: Randy T Says 748-F Better Than Expected

Thu Apr 05, 2012 7:16 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):
Just 6 months ago everyone was saying the B-747-8F wasn't meeting specs. Even Cargolux delayed their first delivery with a dog and pony show.

But, now that CX has some B-747-8 initial numbers I am wondering if it will help them consider the B-747-8I, over the A-380, when they order their VLA.

I'd wager so.   
To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu

Who is online