dkramer7
Topic Author
Posts: 114
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 11:06 am

Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?

Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:15 am

Hi all

I see more and more statements dismissing the B747-400 as "gas guzzling".

My question is, was it always a gas guzzler? Or does the fuel consumption go up over time?
 
bristolflyer
Posts: 2103
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 1:35 am

Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?

Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:22 am

I'm sure the notion that it is now a gas guzzler is that aircraft and have been getting more and more efficient meaning older designs are left treading water. It used to be 'state of the art' when it was introduced, not it's long in the tooth and the fuel economy is nowhere near as good as today's offerings.
Fortune favours the brave
 
AADC10
Posts: 1507
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2004 7:40 am

Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?

Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:42 am

The 744 was a reasonably efficient four engine aircraft in its time. 2 engine aircraft were more efficient but could not operate many routes under the old ETOPS rules. Under ETOPS 180 there are only a handful of routes that cannot be served with a twin. The 772 offers both greater efficiency and seating comfort over the 744 (and 748) and if you go 10Y on a 772 it beats the 744 by a wide margin. The A380 also beats the 744 in both aspects with the efficiency of larger volume.
 
User avatar
Pellegrine
Posts: 1828
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:19 am

Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?

Fri Sep 13, 2013 4:15 am

Quoting dkramer7 (Thread starter):
B747-400 as "gas guzzling".

Comparatively now... The 77W will be gas guzzling given time.

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 2):
The 744 was a reasonably efficient four engine aircraft in its time.

It was extremely efficient for its time. As a derivative, it was top of its class for 20 years.
oh boy, here we go!!!
 
User avatar
mayor
Posts: 6188
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:58 pm

Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?

Fri Sep 13, 2013 4:34 am

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 2):
The A380 also beats the 744 in both aspects with the efficiency of larger volume.

But it's still not as graceful looking as the 744.        
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
 
warden145
Posts: 539
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 8:36 am

Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?

Fri Sep 13, 2013 4:39 am

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 3):
Comparatively now... The 77W will be gas guzzling given time.

There are some people already making that claim!! All I can say is "hindsight is 20/20"...on the one hand, look at how efficient a Rolls Royce Trent 1000 is compared to an RB211-524H as used in a 747-400. On the other hand, look at how efficient an RB211 is compared to a Pratt & Whitney JT9D....and how a JT9D compares to a JT3D, how a JT3D compares to a Wright R-3350, etc ad naseum. The point I'm trying to get at (and that others have made) is that what was state of the art 20 years ago would be considered inefficient by today's standards. No major carrier would even joke about putting a 707 on a route in 2013, but in the early 1960's it was arguably the most efficient aircraft available (certainly compared to the prop birds that were still around in large numbers at that point).

On a personal note, I've always had a soft spot for the 747...I know she has far more years behind her than ahead of her, but I still find it kind of sad how much hate some people pile on the Queen of the Skies...

Quoting mayor (Reply 4):
But it's still not as graceful looking as the 744.        

AMEN!!! Big grin OTOH to me, the only conventional jet that looks better than the 747 is the 707...but, I guess raw efficiency trumps art, sadly IMHO...

[Edited 2013-09-12 21:41:11]
ETOPS = Engine Turns Off, Passengers Swim
 
LAXintl
Posts: 20183
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?

Fri Sep 13, 2013 4:43 am

Simply put, the 744 is yesterdays plane. The economics are not there anymore for many operators.

Same how todays darling 77W shall be pushed out of the way one day also.

Its called progess.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
User avatar
mayor
Posts: 6188
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:58 pm

Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?

Fri Sep 13, 2013 5:18 am

Quoting warden145 (Reply 5):
AMEN!!! Big grin OTOH to me, the only conventional jet that looks better than the 747 is the 707...but, I guess raw efficiency trumps art, sadly IMHO...

I actually like the CV880 better than the 707, but I'm talking of beauty before efficiency in this case, again.
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
 
User avatar
Pellegrine
Posts: 1828
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:19 am

Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?

Fri Sep 13, 2013 5:27 am

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 6):
Simply put, the 744 is yesterdays plane. The economics are not there anymore for many operators.

Yes this is true in theory and going forward, yet in the 2000s and first half of the 2010s the 744 has remained a significant profitable element in many worldwide fleets.

Yes it is on the way out, and on a personal note, I will miss it.

As I have posted even before there was a 777X proposed, theoretically the A35J should spank the pants off the 77W.
oh boy, here we go!!!
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23199
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?

Fri Sep 13, 2013 5:34 am

Quoting dkramer7 (Thread starter):
My question is, was it always a gas guzzler? Or does the fuel consumption go up over time?

Older frames due see higher fuel consumption due to age (wear and tear on components and such).

zeke provided some fuel burn figures for various CX airframes and on a similar mission, the 747-400 burns about 3 tons more fuel per hour than the 777-300ER.
 
trent1000
Posts: 610
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 3:55 pm

Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?

Fri Sep 13, 2013 8:00 am

Although this is an old article now (June, 2012), it's still worth a look. It gives a comparsion of MH's 747 and A380 fuel consumption.

http://www.smh.com.au/travel/jumbo-j...-out-of-favour-20120620-20nx8.html
 
na
Posts: 9170
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 1999 3:52 am

Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?

Fri Sep 13, 2013 9:41 am

In its heyday in the 90s, the 747-400 was as much a gas-guzzler as the 77W is today. Its simply technological progress which makes the 744 appear like that today. But its still a viable, reliable plane which works for many airlines.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 6):
Simply put, the 744 is yesterdays plane. The economics are not there anymore for many operators.

Same how todays darling 77W shall be pushed out of the way one day also.

Its called progess.

That says everything. More words are not needed in this thread.
 
1400mph
Posts: 1051
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 11:29 am

Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?

Fri Sep 13, 2013 11:39 am

With 50+ still in the BA fleet I'd like to know the figure for the boost to annual profit when their 744's are all replaced.
 
morrisond
Posts: 220
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?

Fri Sep 13, 2013 11:43 am

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 12):

Yes what would the savings be if they replaced all there 744 with 779?
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Crew
Posts: 20153
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?

Fri Sep 13, 2013 11:46 am

Quoting na (Reply 11):
In its heyday in the 90s, the 747-400 was as much a gas-guzzler as the 77W is today.

Yes but nobody could really care because the price of fuel was way lower in the 90s.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 12):
With 50+ still in the BA fleet I'd like to know the figure for the boost to annual profit when their 744's are all replaced.

It's no easy math. The 787s and A350s will burn up to 30% less fuel, but the 747s have been payed for meaning the new aircraft will have higher capital costs.
Close, but no cigar http://vine.co/v/OjqeYWWpVWK
 
User avatar
speedbored
Posts: 1672
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:14 am

Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?

Fri Sep 13, 2013 12:01 pm

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 12):
With 50+ still in the BA fleet I'd like to know the figure for the boost to annual profit when their 744's are all replaced.
Quoting morrisond (Reply 13):
It's no easy math. The 787s and A350s will burn up to 30% less fuel, but the 747s have been payed for meaning the new aircraft will have higher capital costs.

  

Initially, it would probably actually have a negative affect on their annual profit, rather than boosting it.

Let's take a hypothetical route on which BA are using one of their paid for 747s. It burns 1000 barrels of oil for each leg of the round-trip, which it does once a day. At today's oil proce of around $110 per barrel, that works out at $110 x 1000 x 2 x 365 = roughly $80M per annum fuel cost.

If they then replace that frame with a 777-9 with similar capacity, and manage to purchase it on a lease at the bargain basement rate of $2M per month, or $24M per annum, the additional lease cost for the new 777 is exactly the same as the fuel cost saving that BA would achieve if it is 30% more efficient. So there would be no difference at all to the bottom line.

But, as KarelXWB says, it's a complex equation involving a whole load more variables than just fuel efficiency.
Still don't like the look and feel of the site? Look at:http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1335851
 
airbazar
Posts: 6936
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?

Fri Sep 13, 2013 12:12 pm

Quoting mayor (Reply 4):
But it's still not as graceful looking as the 744.

I disagree. Watching an A380 coming in for a landing is as beautiful as anything out there. Its smooth, graceful glide is unmatched by any other plane, IMO.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 9):
zeke provided some fuel burn figures for various CX airframes and on a similar mission, the 747-400 burns about 3 tons more fuel per hour than the 777-300ER.

But it can carry a lot more passengers too. Like the 752, it still has its niche missions in which the only thing that can do a 744's job, is another 744 or 748. But like the 752, those missions are shrinking.
 
jfk777
Posts: 5861
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?

Fri Sep 13, 2013 12:26 pm

It also depends on your route structure. Cathay will Long routes to the USA and Europe with 12 to 14 hours flying timr will find a 777 much more efficient. Lufthnsa and BA with many routes to the east coast of America with 7 to 10 hours flying time will find it efficient.
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?

Fri Sep 13, 2013 12:37 pm

Quoting dkramer7 (Thread starter):
My question is, was it always a gas guzzler? Or does the fuel consumption go up over time?

It was an efficient aircraft at the time. But as many has stated it is a moving goal line and by today's standard it is no longer top of class.

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 2):
2 engine aircraft were more efficient but could not operate many routes under the old ETOPS rules.

You're missing the most important part. As a general rule bigger is more efficient per equal unit moved. It is much more efficient to have a single plain with 4 engines than it is to fly two planes with 2 engines to move the same amount of units.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 6):
Its called progess.

  

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 14):
Yes but nobody could really care because the price of fuel was way lower in the 90s.


That is not what I remember. I think cost of fuel has always been a concern and less use of fuel always being a major feature.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
chieft
Posts: 325
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 11:35 pm

Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?

Fri Sep 13, 2013 1:28 pm

It is interesting, that everybody here compares the B747-400 with the B777s and possibly the coming A350s.

The more I wonder about the fact, that the B744 successor should be the B748; but it is a big disappointment for Boeing on the passenger side. Virtually no airline is interested in this state-of-the-art B747 version. The A380 is a larger success.

The 2-wholers are the ones driving the market as they are more economical to operate. 4-wholers are the Dinosaurs of our time.

Beside the fuel matter, economics of an aircraft are also driven by other factors. If the capital costs, i.e., are low enough, the even higher costs for fuel and maintenance could still lead to an economical operation of B747-400s.

As an example I would take LH; their B744s are depreciated, so the capital costs are virtually non existent. Possibly a reason, why they still operate them successfully.

[Edited 2013-09-13 06:31:45]
Aircraft are marginal costs with wings.
 
winstonlegthigh
Posts: 130
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2012 5:15 pm

Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?

Fri Sep 13, 2013 1:59 pm

Quoting airbazar (Reply 16):
I disagree. Watching an A380 coming in for a landing is as beautiful as anything out there. Its smooth, graceful glide is unmatched by any other plane, IMO.

I had to see it to believe it. I agree, definitely graceful- almost majestic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdtoXiDNQoo

 

[Edited 2013-09-13 06:59:50]
Never has gravity been so uplifting.
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?

Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:19 pm

Quoting chieft (Reply 19):
The 2-wholers are the ones driving the market as they are more economical to operate. 4-wholers are the Dinosaurs of our time.

A,net myth. Reality is that the most economical tool is using the right tool for the job. When the right plane is bigger than a two engine plane can handle then the four engine is usually the most economical tool. On the few occasions where an AN-225 is the right tool you need 6 engines. As it isn't economical to build a plane with 4 engines to replace it.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
User avatar
exFWAOONW
Posts: 376
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 10:32 pm

Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?

Fri Sep 13, 2013 3:14 pm

Quoting warden145 (Reply 5):
...No major carrier would even joke about putting a 707 on a route in 2013, but in the early 1960's it was arguably the most efficient aircraft available (certainly compared to the prop birds that were still around in large numbers at that point)....

I doubt that is true. The 707 and other early jets burned more fuel to go faster than their prop bretheren. In the "I want to go faster, too" world we have become, it was marketing that drove the switch to more jets not fuel economy.
Is just me, or is flying not as much fun anymore?
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?

Fri Sep 13, 2013 3:23 pm

If you go back in time to the mid 1980s, range was a big problem. Europe – East Asia was close to impossible. US – Asia outside of Japan was also a challenge. US – Australia/New Zealand was also a challenge.

Those routes were big core markets, but the only airplanes that had a chance of operating them nonstop were the extended range 747 SP along with the longer range DC-10-30ERs or DC10-40s and L1011-500s. Those airplanes were rare, and very inefficient since they traded passengers for range.

The 747-400 was the first airplane with transpacific range that didn’t sacrifice passengers and payload. Range alone could sell the airplane, and every long haul airline bought it. The oil shock of the 1970s was over and fuel burn was less of a priority. Nonstop was the mission. Accordingly, range was key to the design which meant the engine design was pushed for more and more thrust. Fuel efficiency increases range, but the emphasis was not on fuel economy like it has been with the 787 and 777 designs. It was on increasing MTOW and more thrust since the 747-400 was using the most powerful engines in production back in the 80s.

The result is a great airplane, but one that has high fuel burn. The 777, A330 and 787 all beat it.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
AS737MAX
Posts: 363
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2013 1:48 am

Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?

Fri Sep 13, 2013 3:28 pm

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 23):
The 777, A330 and 787 all beat it.

And the reason why the 747-8i has not done very well is because Boeing let that market slip away to the 77W
48 Flights, 43,720 Miles Flown
 
RamblinMan
Posts: 785
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 3:57 pm

Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?

Fri Sep 13, 2013 4:11 pm

Quoting chieft (Reply 19):
It is interesting, that everybody here compares the B747-400 with the B777s and possibly the coming A350s.
The more I wonder about the fact, that the B744 successor should be the B748

Simple- Those are the aircraft which taking over missions from the 744. The fact that they look dissimilar or have fewer engines or whatever is completely irrelevant. The 748 is a reboot of an old plane, and was bound to fail. It's kind of like how the first A350 was just a slightly modified 330...then they realized it would never be competitive with the 787 and went back to the drawing board and the result is, IMHO, magnificent. Not even sure what Boeing was thinking with the 748, as they already offer the 77W which has similar capabilities.

Quoting cmf (Reply 21):
an AN-225

THE An-225. There's only one.
 
alfa164
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:47 am

Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?

Fri Sep 13, 2013 4:14 pm

Quoting airbazar (Reply 16):

I disagree. Watching an A380 coming in for a landing is as beautiful as anything out there. Its smooth, graceful glide is unmatched by any other plane, IMO.

The "smooth, graceful glide" may be beautiful, but f you have to look at the aircraft itself... that ugly, odd-looking nose makes you want to vomit...
 
LH707330
Posts: 1510
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?

Fri Sep 13, 2013 4:28 pm

Quoting exFWAOONW (Reply 22):
I doubt that is true. The 707 and other early jets burned more fuel to go faster than their prop bretheren. In the "I want to go faster, too" world we have become, it was marketing that drove the switch to more jets not fuel economy.

Exactly true, the 3350s were pretty efficient, but fuel was cheap, so the tradeoff on cool factor and transporting more people due to faster speeds tipped the scales in favor of the 707.
 
warren747sp
Posts: 980
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2004 7:51 am

Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?

Fri Sep 13, 2013 6:00 pm

The title goes to the A380 now!
747SP
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11855
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?

Fri Sep 13, 2013 7:31 pm

"Gas Guzzler" is a catch all for the 744 having higher RASM.
I should do some numbers... but while the 744 has been improved quite a bit in the last decade (engine and airframe PIPs), it hasn't been as much as the 77W. But one reason the A346 will be retired before 744s is that the A346 didn't have enough sales to justify the normal PIPs to keep the performance/maintenance steadily improving.

What's with the discussion on aircraft looks? Any airline buying on anything but economics is either bankrupt or going that way. As noted upthread, part of the reason for 744 retirements is that smaller gauge planes are allowed non-stop flights versus 'hops' or connections. Where in the era of the mega hub and that will only become more important with time. The 744 is in an odd size point *and* competing with the 77W, 788, and soon A359.

Quoting RamblinMan (Reply 25):
THE An-225. There's only one.

If you need that capacity, one will pay. But there was a day when a German railroad was going to refuse *all* the GE locomotives ordered unless every one arrived on the promise date. Since only the AN-225 could haul them and it was during the downturn when too many railroads were trying to refuse previously ordered locamotives, flying them on the AN-225 saved GE money (vs. a lost order).

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
User avatar
WildcatYXU
Posts: 2610
Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 2:05 pm

Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?

Fri Sep 13, 2013 7:45 pm

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 29):
But there was a day when a German railroad was going to refuse *all* the GE locomotives ordered unless every one arrived on the promise date. Since only the AN-225 could haul them and it was during the downturn when too many railroads were trying to refuse previously ordered locamotives, flying them on the AN-225 saved GE money (vs. a lost order).

Actually, it was an AN-124.
310, 319, 320, 321, 333, 343, 345, 346, 732, 735, 73G, 738, 744, 752, 762, 763, 77L, 77W, 788, AT4, AT7, BEH, CR2, CRA, CR9, DH1, DH3, DH4, E75, E90, E95, F28, F50, F100, Saab 340, YAK40
 
warden145
Posts: 539
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 8:36 am

Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?

Fri Sep 13, 2013 8:09 pm

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 29):
What's with the discussion on aircraft looks? Any airline buying on anything but economics is either bankrupt or going that way.

With all due respect...you're correct from an economic standpoint, but what's wrong with people stating their personal preferences?  
ETOPS = Engine Turns Off, Passengers Swim
 
NWAROOSTER
Posts: 1031
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 2:29 pm

Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?

Fri Sep 13, 2013 8:22 pm

Quoting chieft (Reply 19):
The more I wonder about the fact, that the B744 successor should be the B748; but it is a big disappointment for Boeing on the passenger side. Virtually no airline is interested in this state-of-the-art B747 version. The A380 is a larger success.

Boeing did not make the 747-8i available until well after the Airbus A380 was being marketed and sold. I have have heard that Airbus has not sold any new A380s for about one year. The A380 has pretty much made its limit on sales.
Only so many aircraft like the A380 are needed and it is reaching its limit of marketability. This can also be said of the latest version of the 747. There are many large twins that now can do what both these aircraft will do and do not require the larger passenger counts.   
Procrastination Is The Theft Of Time.......
 
707lvr
Posts: 457
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 3:41 am

Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?

Fri Sep 13, 2013 8:22 pm

We've compared the 747 with other Boeing models. What I would like to know is which airplane burns more fuel on a 6,000 mile flight with 400 passengers, a Boeing 747-8 or an Airbus 380?
 
tjh8402
Posts: 530
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:20 am

Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?

Fri Sep 13, 2013 9:12 pm

Quoting 707lvr (Reply 33):
We've compared the 747 with other Boeing models. What I would like to know is which airplane burns more fuel on a 6,000 mile flight with 400 passengers, a Boeing 747-8 or an Airbus 380?

I'm sure the A380 probably will, but you'll make more $ off those passengers as a 400 seat A380 is going to be a very premium heavy configuration, whereas a 400 seat 748 will have a lot more low revenue Y seats.
 
YULWinterSkies
Posts: 1266
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 11:42 pm

Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?

Fri Sep 13, 2013 9:21 pm

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 2):
The 744 was a reasonably efficient four engine aircraft in its time. 2 engine aircraft were more efficient but could not operate many routes under the old ETOPS rules.

There was also no twin engine a/c bigger than an A-300 or 763 in the late 80s. The 763ER had great range but ETOPS were limiting it a bit, and the A-300 did not have anywhere as much range.
So, the 744 was the only option for high capacity, unless one wanted the (much smaller obviously) MD11. And it was a substantially improved 747, on so many aspects, notably fuel consumption, noise, range, 2 pilot-only cockpit, etc...

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 14):
Yes but nobody could really care because the price of fuel was way lower in the 90s.

And also because nothing better was available. Yes cost of fuel it was less of a big deal then, but if it was not a factor at all, how do you explain that in the 90s, the 747 classics were massively retired at the benefit of the -400?
When I doubt... go running!
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?

Fri Sep 13, 2013 9:33 pm

Quoting RamblinMan (Reply 25):
THE An-225. There's only one.

Why it is very difficult to find the economics in making something similar with less engines.

Quoting YULWinterSkies (Reply 35):
744 was the only option for high capacity

Obviously you have that 744 was only bought because of range. Capacity was something you got but didn't want   
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19046
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?

Fri Sep 13, 2013 11:34 pm

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 23):
Those routes were big core markets, but the only airplanes that had a chance of operating them nonstop were the extended range 747 SP along with the longer range DC-10-30ERs or DC10-40s and L1011-500s. Those airplanes were rare, and very inefficient since they traded passengers for range.

How did the DC-10-30ER trade passengers for range. CP converted several of their DC-10-30s to -ERs for use on routes like YVR-HKG. They had the same seating configuration as the rest of their DC-10-30s. What you say is relevant only to the 747SP and L-1011-500.
 
romeobravo
Posts: 1440
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2013 8:37 pm

Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?

Sat Sep 14, 2013 12:18 am

It's shame the 744 is dying, it's a beautiful and unique aircraft. But it has basically been destroyed by the 77W. You just need to glance at the 2 aircraft... the 77W just looks so efficient in comparison.

I'm curious how the 748i stacks up against the 77W in terms of economics and performance though?

Has their been any analyses by people on here?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23199
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?

Sat Sep 14, 2013 12:24 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 9):
zeke provided some fuel burn figures for various CX airframes and on a similar mission, the 747-400 burns about 3 tons more fuel per hour than the 777-300ER.
Quoting airbazar (Reply 16):
But it can carry a lot more passengers too. Like the 752, it still has its niche missions in which the only thing that can do a 744's job, is another 744 or 748. But like the 752, those missions are shrinking.

Indeed it can, which is why airlines continue to operate the 747-400 where they can fill it.



Quoting AS737MAX (Reply 24):
And the reason why the 747-8i has not done very well is because Boeing let that market slip away to the 77W

The 747-8 is hurt due to her high trip costs - like the 747-400, she needs to be filled in order to be profitable.

But if you can fill a 747-8, chances are you can fill an A380-800 - and the A380-800 offers even more revenue generation capability thanks to it's larger size.
 
PGNCS
Posts: 2249
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 5:07 am

Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?

Sat Sep 14, 2013 1:50 am

Quoting warden145 (Reply 31):
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 29):What's with the discussion on aircraft looks? Any airline buying on anything but economics is either bankrupt or going that way.With all due respect...you're correct from an economic standpoint, but what's wrong with people stating their personal preferences?

Nothing, except the thread is ostensibly about the economics of the aircraft, a subject that renders personal aesthetic preferences irrelevant.

Quoting na (Reply 11):
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 6):Simply put, the 744 is yesterdays plane. The economics are not there anymore for many operators.

Same how todays darling 77W shall be pushed out of the way one day also.

Its called progess.

That says everything. More words are not needed in this thread.

Exactly correct, na and LAXintl.

Quoting warden145 (Reply 5):
On a personal note, I've always had a soft spot for the 747...I know she has far more years behind her than ahead of her, but I still find it kind of sad how much hate some people pile on the Queen of the Skies...

I have time flying the "Queen of the Skies" and feel no nostalgic attachment to it. It's just a machine. You can like the 747, that's fine and well, but this is an economic discussion.
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6674
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?

Sat Sep 14, 2013 3:29 am

Cathay has been quoted in the latest Aspire article as indicating that their 77Ws have a25% lower trip cost and a 17% lower seat mile costs than their 744s despite the former carrying more cargo. And the 777x will be 20% better than that. Large twins are cleverly taking share.

tortugamon
 
Max Q
Posts: 5644
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?

Sat Sep 14, 2013 6:56 am

Its unfair and unrealistic to compare the B744 to the 77W.


The comparison should be made to the B747 Classic in which case it was an enormous improvement
in fuel burn, capacity and range.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6674
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?

Sat Sep 14, 2013 7:30 am

Quoting Max Q (Reply 42):

77w is the most widely used 744 replacement. Why is it unfair if airlines are making that comparison ? In 1989 it was not it was not a gas guzzler. Now it is. Maybe I misinterpreted he question.


tortugamon
 
MD-90
Posts: 7835
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?

Sat Sep 14, 2013 8:18 am

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 2):
The 744 was a reasonably efficient four engine aircraft in its time.

If your airline could fill it year round it was the most efficient passenger jet until the 773 came along. Its CASM was superior to the A343, 772, and MD-11 in the 1990s.
 
User avatar
DarkSnowyNight
Posts: 1797
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:59 pm

Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?

Sat Sep 14, 2013 12:08 pm

Quoting warden145 (Reply 5):
On a personal note, I've always had a soft spot for the 747...I know she has far more years behind her than ahead of her, but I still find it kind of sad how much hate some people pile on the Queen of the Skies...

I'll buy that. Occasionally, I'll have reason to fly on one, and I'm not liking how much I have to remind myself that there was a time when I would be very enthusiastic to fly her.

It's like an old girlfriend that you remember being excited about, but lately all you think about is how much effort she is. You know you used to be in love, but now it's just more of an obligation.

Quoting exFWAOONW (Reply 22):
Quoting LH707330 (Reply 27):

While it's true the 707 & DC8 did sell a lot of sex, there's no doubt that they were hugely better than anything else of the time. Their direct operating costs are in line with 377s, Connies, and DC 7s, but they were really 4 engined planes, had vastly superior reliability, and most importantly, carry twice as many PAX .

Imagine the leap today if someone came up with an A380-1000 that had only two engines, a seating capacity of 1200, 20% lower mx costs, and could somehow fly at Concord speed. That's about the level of difference between the DC 8 and the 7 Seas.
Be A Perfectionst, You're Nothing If You're Just Another; Something Material, This Isn't Personal...
 
vv701
Posts: 5780
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?

Sat Sep 14, 2013 3:31 pm

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 23):
If you go back in time to the mid 1980s, range was a big problem. Europe %u2013 East Asia was close to impossible

  

From Keith Gaskell, "British Airways Its History, Aircraft and Liveries", Airlife (Shrewsbury), 1999, p. 42

"The [BA 747]-236s had also received uprated engines , RB211-524D4s of 53,000 lb thrust, making them suitable for sectors up to 6500 miles such as Heathrow to Los Angeles. By that time, however, the airline's commercial department was demanding aircraft which could operate much longer non-stop routes such as between Heathrow and Bangkok, Hong Kong, Singapore and Tokyo year-round with a full passenger load. Boeing therefore took the opportunity presented by the availability of even more powerful engines . . . to produce . . . the Series-400, which would satisfy the airline's requirement."

This requirement resulted in the BA order for 16 744s plus options on a further 12 that, when placed in August 1986, was, according to Gaskell, ". . . the largest individual aircraft order ever placed."

Gaskell goes on to write:

"At the time it was confidently predicted that these new 747s would also replace the ageing 747-136s, but . . . the early 'Classics' were to survive . . . for another decade."

When the final five BA 136s were retired on 31 October 1999 the oldest, G-AWNE, was closer to 29 than 28 years old and had much earlier been depreciated to a residual scrap value. It was therefore contributing a zero cap[ital. cost to BA's accounts.

It will be interesting to see how much longer the likes of BA's newest 747-436, G-BYGG, that was just fourteen last April, will remain in service. No doubt BA will keep a careful eye on the higher cost of fuel and maintenance against its lower capital cost in determining its retirement date.
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?

Sat Sep 14, 2013 3:39 pm

Quoting VV701 (Reply 46):
with a full passenger load.

Doesn't this mean they wanted the capacity as much or even more than range?   
If it was all about range they certainly could have traded the unwanted capacity for range. Pretty cheap when you don't want it.  
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
Max Q
Posts: 5644
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?

Sat Sep 14, 2013 9:21 pm

Quoting VV701 (Reply 46):

From Keith Gaskell, "British Airways Its History, Aircraft and Liveries", Airlife (Shrewsbury), 1999, p. 42

"The [BA 747]-236s had also received uprated engines , RB211-524D4s of 53,000 lb thrust, making them suitable for sectors up to 6500 miles such as Heathrow to Los Angeles. By that time, however, the airline's commercial department was demanding aircraft which could operate much longer non-stop routes such as between Heathrow and Bangkok, Hong Kong, Singapore and Tokyo year-round with a full passenger load. Boeing therefore took the opportunity presented by the availability of even more powerful engines . . . to produce . . . the Series-400, which would satisfy the airline's requirement."

This requirement resulted in the BA order for 16 744s plus options on a further 12 that, when placed in August 1986, was, according to Gaskell, ". . . the largest individual aircraft order ever placed."

Gaskell goes on to write:

"At the time it was confidently predicted that these new 747s would also replace the ageing 747-136s, but . . . the early 'Classics' were to survive . . . for another decade."

When the final five BA 136s were retired on 31 October 1999 the oldest, G-AWNE, was closer to 29 than 28 years old and had much earlier been depreciated to a residual scrap value. It was therefore contributing a zero cap[ital. cost to BA's accounts.

It will be interesting to see how much longer the likes of BA's newest 747-436, G-BYGG, that was just fourteen last April, will remain in service. No doubt BA will keep a careful eye on the higher cost of fuel and maintenance against its lower capital cost in determining its retirement date.

Very interesting, the Classic 747's in their final, uprated versions were a quantum leap in capability compared to the early ones.


Cx was operating them non-stop from HKG-LGW and HKG-YVR.



True they were weight restricted but compare their capability to the early -100's and it's very impressive.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19046
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

Is The B747-400 Really That Much Of A "Gas Guzzler"?

Sat Sep 14, 2013 9:31 pm

Quoting Max Q (Reply 48):
the Classic 747's in their final, uprated versions were a quantum leap in capability compared to the early ones.

CX was operating them non-stop from HKG-LGW and HKG-YVR.

Late model 742s basically killed the market for the 747SP. Pan Am bought the SP to operate routes like JFK-NRT but the later 742s were also able to operate that route with much better economics.