africawings
Posts: 84
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 4:47 am

747-8 SP?

Mon Mar 19, 2007 11:42 pm

Given the recent statements from Qantas saying they can't use a 777LR year round due to its limited range and ETOPS requirements, I was wondering if there is a market for a new 747-8SP aircraft that has a shorter fuselage holding say 280 passengers with an 11,000 mile range and can operate from London to Sydney both ways year round.

Would there be any major orders for such a plane?

SAA, Qantas. United?

Thoughts?
 
KELPkid
Posts: 5247
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 5:33 am

RE: 747-8 SP?

Mon Mar 19, 2007 11:50 pm

I understand EK was rather dissapoined with Boeing for going for the longer proposed length of the 747-8i fuselage...one wonders if a shorter-length fuse would b in the works...it would give EK the range boost they would be looking for in such an aircraft  scratchchin 
Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
 
User avatar
Jetlagged
Posts: 2562
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:00 pm

RE: 747-8 SP?

Mon Mar 19, 2007 11:53 pm

I wouldn't call the 777-200LR range limited!

As for a new SP I would doubt it very much. Maybe a 747-8ER with additional tanks.
The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9844
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: 747-8 SP?

Mon Mar 19, 2007 11:55 pm

Quoting Africawings (Thread starter):

Thoughts?

They are thinking of the A380-800R, about 1100nm more range than the current aircraft with 480 pax.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6418
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: 747-8 SP?

Tue Mar 20, 2007 6:15 am

With the current fuel prices I doubt a 748SP very much. I also doubt much more sales of planes like 772LR.

At such ultra long rance flights the fuel burn tend to be up to 10 tonnes for each ton of payload. That way by far the major part of fuel is burned just for transporting fuel.

When fuel costs are a high percentage of the total operating costs, then a fuel stop on those very long range flights make more economic sense. That will affect the fares on ultra long range flights more per seat mile than shorter flights.

That will reduce the market for ultra long range planes.

Example:

On a maximum range flight for a 772LR the total fuel bill one way is with current fuel prices around $100,000, which with average load factor translates to $500 per occupied seat or $1,000 for a return ticket.

An alternative could be using a 773 or 773ER with a fuel stop. That would add roughly two hours to the one way travel time. The 773 would use some more fuel for an extra take-off, but save that again on never having to deal with a full fuel load.
It would take along 100 more seats for roughtly the same total fuel consumption.

That will mean a fuel cost disadvantage in the region of $300 per pax for the non-stop roundtrip flight. How much people are willing to pay that amount for avoiding two stopovers and 4 additional travel hours? Some are, but fewer than a few years ago when the fuel cost disadvantage was $100 or so.

The $100 saving would probably be almost eliminated by less landing fees, reduced wear on tires and brakes, etc. But the $300 savings would not.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
SCAT15F
Posts: 376
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:34 am

RE: 747-8 SP?

Tue Mar 20, 2007 10:17 am

A 747-8I shrunk to the original SP length of 184 Ft but with the 747-400 upper deck (20-40 more pax) and use of the crown space (12 more pax) would be able to seat about 325 in a 3-class arrangement, and with a max TOW of about 775,000lb it would in theory be able to carry that payload about 9,800 nm; with the same thrust ratings as the regular 748I, I believe it could do it at a speed of mach .89-.90 and an altitude of 45-48,000 ft. It would also have the climb performance of a 757-200.

It would of course, be a niche aircraft with maybe 100-150 orders.

Remember, the 777-200LR can only do the 9420 nm range with the 3 aux fuel tanks, which means less payload than normal, and no one has even ordered that option yet, so the "current" range is more like 8900 nm.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests