Boeing for the first time publicly menionted that 747 production may end.

We are currently producing at a rate of 1.0 per month and expect to reduce the rate to 0.5 per month in September 2016. We continue to have a number of completed aircraft in inventory as well as unsold production positions and we remain focused on obtaining additional orders and implementing cost-reduction efforts. If we are unable to obtain sufficient orders and/or market, production and other risks cannot be mitigated, we could record additional losses that may be material, and it is reasonably possible that we could decide to end production of the 747.

Source
https://leehamnews.com/2016/07/27/747-p ... nd-boeing/

Have the two AF1 replacements been formally ordered?

DocLightning wrote:

Have the two AF1 replacements been formally ordered?

I thought they were going to order 4

Somebody get the bugle and start playing Taps...

I mean, we all knew this was coming. Not happy about it, but...long live the twins.

There is the factory space for the MoM line. Out with the old, in with the new.

Yes, sad, but likely. Nothing lasts forever.

seahawk wrote:

There is the factory space for the MoM line. Out with the old, in with the new.

There's even more factory space in South Carolina.

DocLightning wrote:

Have the two AF1 replacements been formally ordered?

The USAF has been releasing design contracts. I expect we'll see a formal appropriations request within a year.

32andBelow wrote:

DocLightning wrote:

Have the two AF1 replacements been formally ordered?

I thought they were going to order 4

Looks like just 2. The original projection of 3 or more was factoring in direct replacement for the E-4B fleet, which IMO is unnecessary.

Well the United States Air Force must be quite quick to order the 2 - 4 frames if they want an American replacement for the VC-25A's, otherwise they might end up with something more sensible like the 777, or if they want to stick to a 4 holer the A380

I am glad I got to see the 747 being built at Everett before it is all done... The good news is that we will these flying for at least another 20-30 years...

I'm 99% sure the 2 new AF1 frames will be the final pax 748's off the line, hell, the might be
final frames period

Dutchy wrote:

Well the United States Air Force must be quite quick to order the 2 - 4 frames if they want an American replacement for the VC-25A's, otherwise they might end up with something more sensible like the 777, or if they want to stick to a 4 holer the A380

I wouldn't be surprised if Boeing Kept the tooling to build these at a later date. They will not lose this order to airbus, and if they want a 747 they are going to get a 747

Long overdue. They probably should've put a bullet in the 747's bulbous head, yeaarrrrrrrs ago.

About freaking time. Boeing should have pulled the plug 10 years ago. Time and money was wasted on the 747-8, instead.

Now, let's put the A380 out of its misery as well.

32andBelow wrote:

I wouldn't be surprised if Boeing Kept the tooling to build these at a later date.

I really don't think so. They'd probably build white tails instead and convert them to AF1 standard at a later date. Not as cost-effective as building some modifications in from the start, but still a whole lot cheaper than mothballing a production line to maybe (if the AF doesn't change its requirements, e.g. regaring the number of engines) a few more years down the line.
People seem to underestimate the cost of mothballing a production line, moving its workers elsewhere and then re-training those workers (if available) a few years later while also re-opening the mothballed production line. Multiply this times a hundred for the various suppliers who'd have to do something very similar for the various 747-specific parts.
Even for an AF1, the cost would be absolutely prohibitive.

32andBelow wrote:

They will not lose this order to airbus

Of course not. Airbus aren't even competing, either.

32andBelow wrote:

and if they want a 747 they are going to get a 747

In this case - sure, because it's easy enough to do by simply building a few white tails, or rushing the order through in time to make sure they're the last 747s built (should it come to that). Once the line is closed for good, though, they aren't going to get a new-built 747 any more than they're going to get a new-built 757 or 2707.

On a side note - interesting how much less of a public statement about the A380 (to not even mention a similar statement from Airbus themselves) would clock up a few dozen replies in a matter of minutes, while here, a.net hardly even shrugs.

Arguably, though, the impact of ending the 747 line is going to be bigger for Boeign than ending A380 production would be for Airbus. Reason being that Boeing is in a forward-loss position on the 747. The 747-8 programme accounting quantity is 1,555 now, i.e. Boeing still hasn't actually seen the full effect of 747-8 development cost on its balance sheet. They've so far sold less than one tenth of that programme accounting quantity. Airbus, on the other hand, already took the main hit during development of the A380, so ending A380 production would have much less effect on their balance sheet (although it won't be zero, of course).

32andBelow wrote:

I wouldn't be surprised if Boeing Kept the tooling to build these at a later date.

I would, because IINM, to take a charge-off against the value of that tooling once the line is closed to commercial orders, the tooling would have to be destroyed/disabled.

No way they're going to sit on the value of that, as well as the opportunity cost of the production space, just waiting for the two orders.

If anything, they'll probably build the aircraft, white-tail them, then the government could modify it on their own time/dime when they're ready for them.

Nothing lives forever. Feels really sad that they might stop production of the most majestic airliner of all time. But it's probably the best choice at this point. Free up resources to focus on a new, innovative and money-making product instead.

I hope when they do formally pull the plug , they give the old girl a proper retirement party.

I can imagine every part of that final frame will have an autograph or two from the assembly line
on them. Heck, I hope the whole plane is covered with autographs when she rolls out.

I wonder when we'll start hearing that the 748i was intentionally only built for LH/CA/KE?

DocLightning wrote:

I mean, we all knew this was coming. Not happy about it, but...long live the twins.

True, but... wow.

How would a production end affect spare parts? Presumably Boeing would be continuing to manufacture OEM parts for some years to come, right?

vhtje wrote:

How would a production end affect spare parts? Presumably Boeing would be continuing to manufacture OEM parts for some years to come, right?

Well, given their past experience, they probably have a pretty good idea of what parts exactly are going to be needed in what quantity in the next 20 years or so. For some parts it's probably quite doable to simply keep producing them or make one on demand if necessary. For other components, it may be easier/cheaper to simply produce a stock of spares and put them into storage for use when needed.
I'd imagine various plugs, screws, vents and valves to belong in the former category and things like engine cowls, flaps etc. to belong in the latter category.

32andBelow wrote:

They will not lose this order to airbus

Dutchy wrote:

Well the United States Air Force must be quite quick to order the 2 - 4 frames if they want an American replacement for the VC-25A's, otherwise they might end up with something more sensible like the 777, or if they want to stick to a 4 holer the A380

A term of the RFP is that the aircraft must be constructed in the U.S.A. So Airbus would have to build an entire new A380 FAL somewhere in the U.S. and rearrange all of those logistics to produce...
...two frames.

AND...Airbus might even have to build the FAL and then wind up losing the contract.

Airbus didn't even bid.

anfromme wrote:

vhtje wrote:

I'd imagine various plugs, screws, vents and valves to belong in the former category and things like engine cowls, flaps etc. to belong in the latter category.

Don't these items come off other planes when they go to the scrapper? I would imagine that it is quite expensive to have a wear house full of parts, which might be needed in the future. And with the advent of 3d printing, it might become easier to just print the desired piece, instead of keeping large amount of stocks.

Seems that the end of the line for the747 is not so far anymore. Now is getting more and more obvious. Is may be possible to see in the near future some topping up orders? May be some existing users of the 748 want some more examples before the end of the production.

DocLightning wrote:

Have the two AF1 replacements been formally ordered?

2 acfts on order? That many? More than enough to save a production line from closure...

32andBelow wrote:

I thought they were going to order 4

Oh, wait! Four of them??? What worries then?

anfromme wrote:

Arguably, though, the impact of ending the 747 line is going to be bigger for Boeign than ending A380 production would be for Airbus. Reason being that Boeing is in a forward-loss position on the 747. The 747-8 programme accounting quantity is 1,555 now, i.e. Boeing still hasn't actually seen the full effect of 747-8 development cost on its balance sheet. They've so far sold less than one tenth of that programme accounting quantity. Airbus, on the other hand, already took the main hit during development of the A380, so ending A380 production would have much less effect on their balance sheet (although it won't be zero, of course).

It wont be that big of an impact as the A380, but it surely will still need to be felt by the company in the next few years as they haven't taken a charge on all outstanding deferred cost yet. The accounting block is also for the total 747 sales from the initial sale to now. So they have reduced the block to 1 555. That is still 33 left in the accounting block, but they only have 21 outstanding orders if they are all taken up, which I believe may be in doubt as well.

anfromme wrote:

Arguably, though, the impact of ending the 747 line is going to be bigger for Boeign than ending A380 production would be for Airbus. Reason being that Boeing is in a forward-loss position on the 747. The 747-8 programme accounting quantity is 1,555 now, i.e. Boeing still hasn't actually seen the full effect of 747-8 development cost on its balance sheet. They've so far sold less than one tenth of that programme accounting quantity. Airbus, on the other hand, already took the main hit during development of the A380, so ending A380 production would have much less effect on their balance sheet (although it won't be zero, of course).

It is the 747 program, there is no separate 747-8 program. Boeing has delivered 1,522 frames and there are 33 frames left in the program accounting quantity of which 21 are under firm orders.

Boeing wrote off all the deferred production cost of around $1.2 billion related to the 747 program. There is still $369 million of unamortized tooling costs to be recovered. As this was not written off, Boeing still expects to generate a profit of around $369 / 33 = $11 million per frame average profit of the remaining frames in the accounting quantity. Should they determine this is not feasible the maximum reach-forward loss would be basically around this figure. Additionally, there probably are ramp-down costs related to the production line.

Dutchy wrote:

anfromme wrote:

vhtje wrote:

I'd imagine various plugs, screws, vents and valves to belong in the former category and things like engine cowls, flaps etc. to belong in the latter category.

Don't these items come off other planes when they go to the scrapper? I would imagine that it is quite expensive to have a wear house full of parts, which might be needed in the future. And with the advent of 3d printing, it might become easier to just print the desired piece, instead of keeping large amount of stocks.

Parts have to be made the way they were certified. 3D printing doesn't always have the fatigue properties of even cast parts. While it is possible to 3D print aerospace parts, they have features added to improve fatigue life.

I was working on a casting where just changing the casting process would require a recert. We had an aircraft grounded for uncertified o_rings. We tested the o-rings and found they failed in hours due to copper contamination (copper and jet fuel do not play well together).

3D printing is great where quality control isn't as critical. Oh, production parts are going forward, but so much of the cost savings is lost in material control.

Lightsaber

Dutchy wrote:

Well the United States Air Force must be quite quick to order the 2 - 4 frames if they want an American replacement for the VC-25A's, otherwise they might end up with something more sensible like the 777, or if they want to stick to a 4 holer the A380

The Secret Service and USAF will not allow a twin to be used as AF1. If they bought an A380 the American people would go bananas. I am sure that two frames are dedicated to be the new VC-25B but you will never know where they are or if they have been built. I was on a Boeing tour back when the two current airplanes were under construction and Boeing got very pissy that I asked the question. In fact, they were structurally complete and had been flown "green" to Wichita for completion.

The new ones are not expected to be on line until 2021 or 2022. They have lots of time to play with.

DTWPurserBoy wrote:

The Secret Service and USAF will not allow a twin to be used as AF1. If they bought an A380 the American people would go bananas. I am sure that two frames are dedicated to be the new VC-25B but you will never know where they are or if they have been built. I was on a Boeing tour back when the two current airplanes were under construction and Boeing got very pissy that I asked the question. In fact, they were structurally complete and had been flown "green" to Wichita for completion.

The new ones are not expected to be on line until 2021 or 2022. They have lots of time to play with.

What are they going to do next time 30 years from now? I am quite sure that the only airliners being built then will be twins. Will they demand a specially designed and built plane just for AF1? THAT will be expensive.

It is sad Boeing is thinking about closing the 747 line, but look at how many of us have flown on 747 and how it changed the world. The world is a twin engine one today. The 777 killed the 747 but that was always the way it was going to be eventually. Boeing didn't know if it was going to take 10 years or 20 from the time the 777 launched. The 777-300ER replaced many 744 and was the plane of choice for airlines expanding in crazy ways, Emirates, and now the 777-9 is the next plane to be the Queen of the skies. The 777-9 and the 787-9 are for a different world for flying nonstop to our destinations.

From California nonstop to secondary Chinese cities would not have worked with a 747 but do with a 787. The 747 story is ending with sales of the 747-8 less then we would have liked but the 747SP and 747-400 changed the world and opened the Pacific. Long may she live, it was a great ride and I will always cherish my 747 trips on TWA, Pan AM, Qantas, Singapore Air, KLM, and British Airways. Its now the 777 time to be the big plane from Seattle.

TasosANG wrote:

Seems that the end of the line for the747 is not so far anymore. Now is getting more and more obvious. Is may be possible to see in the near future some topping up orders? May be some existing users of the 748 want some more examples before the end of the production.

IIRC....the C17 landed a few top off orders from existing customers before the line closed.

I imagine the same thing might happen with the 748.

anfromme wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

I wouldn't be surprised if Boeing Kept the tooling to build these at a later date.

I really don't think so. They'd probably build white tails instead and convert them to AF1 standard at a later date. Not as cost-effective as building some modifications in from the start, but still a whole lot cheaper than mothballing a production line to maybe (if the AF doesn't change its requirements, e.g. regaring the number of engines) a few more years down the line.
People seem to underestimate the cost of mothballing a production line, moving its workers elsewhere and then re-training those workers (if available) a few years later while also re-opening the mothballed production line. Multiply this times a hundred for the various suppliers who'd have to do something very similar for the various 747-specific parts.
Even for an AF1, the cost would be absolutely prohibitive.

AF1s are so specific that it may even not technically possible to build a standard 748 first and then modificy it into AF1 standard.

DTWPurserBoy wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Well the United States Air Force must be quite quick to order the 2 - 4 frames if they want an American replacement for the VC-25A's, otherwise they might end up with something more sensible like the 777, or if they want to stick to a 4 holer the A380

The Secret Service and USAF will not allow a twin to be used as AF1. If they bought an A380 the American people would go bananas. I am sure that two frames are dedicated to be the new VC-25B but you will never know where they are or if they have been built. I was on a Boeing tour back when the two current airplanes were under construction and Boeing got very pissy that I asked the question. In fact, they were structurally complete and had been flown "green" to Wichita for completion.

The new ones are not expected to be on line until 2021 or 2022. They have lots of time to play with.

The President has flown on 2 engine aircraft in the past. The title "Air Force One" is only the callsign of any plane the President flies on. President Bush and Clinton have been on government Gulfstreams as well as 757's. Obama has also flied on a 757.

I am sure Congress when they come back will put in their budget for replacements for the 4 E-4's and 2 VC-25's for a total of 6 frames. I don't see Congress or the military wanting to downsize their love of obnoxiously expensive, big, and wasteful for anything military especially transporting the President.

YAY! The 747 has done nothing but suck money away from other programs just to keep it alive. It's sad to see it go but everything must go at some point.

b747400erf wrote:

DTWPurserBoy wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Well the United States Air Force must be quite quick to order the 2 - 4 frames if they want an American replacement for the VC-25A's, otherwise they might end up with something more sensible like the 777, or if they want to stick to a 4 holer the A380

The Secret Service and USAF will not allow a twin to be used as AF1. If they bought an A380 the American people would go bananas. I am sure that two frames are dedicated to be the new VC-25B but you will never know where they are or if they have been built. I was on a Boeing tour back when the two current airplanes were under construction and Boeing got very pissy that I asked the question. In fact, they were structurally complete and had been flown "green" to Wichita for completion.

The new ones are not expected to be on line until 2021 or 2022. They have lots of time to play with.

The President has flown on 2 engine aircraft in the past. The title "Air Force One" is only the callsign of any plane the President flies on. President Bush and Clinton have been on government Gulfstreams as well as 757's. Obama has also flied on a 757.

I am sure Congress when they come back will put in their budget for replacements for the 4 E-4's and 2 VC-25's for a total of 6 frames. I don't see Congress or the military wanting to downsize their love of obnoxiously expensive, big, and wasteful for anything military especially transporting the President.

Agreed. I personally think the 777-8X would be a good replacement for the E4B as well as possibly the VC25's, but happy to see some 747s as well!

hayzel777 wrote:

YAY! The 747 has done nothing but suck money away from other programs just to keep it alive. It's sad to see it go but everything must go at some point.

And the 748i program has kept the A380 price down. The 747 was without competition, so it really was the money maker for Boeing in its day.

hongkongflyer wrote:

AF1s are so specific that it may even not technically possible to build a standard 748 first and then modificy it into AF1 standard.

What is so specific about the basic plane? I understand that there is a great need for a lot of electronic toys to play with, but if you have a green plane it should be possible to build this kind of stuff in. Perhaps the two AF1 planes are already build to the standard, Boeing must feel that this is a contract that they can't loose, so it must make some sense to build them as white tail, according to the specs of the secret service and waiting for government approval to destinate them as VC-25B at a later date.
If they are going to replace the E-4's as well, 6 frames in total, that is one years production right there

The VC-25 fleet doesn't have many hours on it. Why not keep flying it till 2030 then replace it with whatever large twin widebody Boeing is producing then. If the Air Force is complaining about difficulty getting 747 classic parts now, just think how difficult getting 747-8 parts will be in 2050. There were lots more 747 classics built and in boneyards than there ever will be 747-8's.

77west wrote:

Agreed. I personally think the 777-8X would be a good replacement for the E4B as well as possibly the VC25's, but happy to see some 747s as well!

Agreed, but heck, I am not an American taxpayer, so if they want to wasted an obscene amount of money on this it's up to them

SEPilot wrote:

What are they going to do next time 30 years from now? I am quite sure that the only airliners being built then will be twins. Will they demand a specially designed and built plane just for AF1? THAT will be expensive.

Okay, I'll bite. In 30 years everyone will be flying on blended wing bodies with 8-10 engines mounted on the tail of these game-changing designs. Oh and the only manufacturer for aircrafts above 160 seats will be Boebus. But perhaps you are right and the next replacement for the A380, A350, 748i and 777X will be just another tube with wings and two engines. Who knows?

DTWPurserBoy wrote:

The Secret Service and USAF will not allow a twin to be used as AF1. If they bought an A380 the American people would go bananas. I am sure that two frames are dedicated to be the new VC-25B but you will never know where they are or if they have been built. I was on a Boeing tour back when the two current airplanes were under construction and Boeing got very pissy that I asked the question. In fact, they were structurally complete and had been flown "green" to Wichita for completion.

That was my initially thoght that Boeing does not produce green frames just hoping someone will pick them up later. I think they might have had this idea or even secret contract from early on and just could not talk about it as long there isn't an official contract. Once the RFP process is completed and the contract is signed, they might say "oh we had these two green frames and the government decided to pick them up". Astonishingly way above market prices...

Sooner787 wrote:

[IIRC....the C17 landed a few top off orders from existing customers before the line closed.

I imagine the same thing might happen with the 748.

Actually, you have that the wrong way round. Boeing built white-tail C-17s (ten of them, I think) and had to work really hard to sell them.

CARST wrote:

Okay, I'll bite. In 30 years everyone will be flying on blended wing bodies with 8-10 engines mounted on the tail of these game-changing designs.

Can't see it happening myself. Fancy a little wager? I might not be around to see the result, though!

I may be remembering this wrong but wasn't there some suggestion several years ago when the Presidential fleet was first mooted for renewal that Airbus and the A380 may well have been a contender? And didn't Airbus withdraw partly or mainly because of the US Senate devised fiasco that saw a tanker procurement competition already won by the A330/MRTT re-run to "ensure" the KC-46 won it second time around ? Where are those KC-46's by the way ?

Waow, it's hard to witness this phase. What a pitty that there was no a.net when the 707 was phased out. I guess the discussions here would have been even more emotional...

JannEejit wrote:

And didn't Airbus withdraw partly or mainly because of the US Senate devised fiasco that saw a tanker procurement competition already won by the A330/MRTT re-run to "ensure" the KC767 won it second time around ?

It is correct that Airbus said that they will not take part. The official justification was that they wanted to avoid all the efforts to take part in such a tender process, IIRC.

N14AZ wrote:

It is correct that Airbus said that they will not take part. The official justification was that they wanted to avoid all the efforts to take part in such a tender process, IIRC.

The official reason:

In 2007 at the USAF’s request, EADS North America provided technical information and answered questions regarding several Airbus widebody commercial aircraft as the service conducted its Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) to recapitalize the current fleet of presidential aircraft.

EADS North America’s strategy for growth in the US is based on bringing value to the US warfighter; making industrial investments in the US and insourcing high technology defense and aerospace jobs. After careful review, we’ve determined that participation in the AF-1 program will not help us meet these business objectives.

Though the company will not respond to this RFI, we remain focused on once again winning the KC-X competition with Northrop Grumman, delivering the UH-72A LUH to the US Army and meeting the needs of our US defense and homeland security customers.

We reiterate our strong commitment to the US Department of Defense and to supporting the warfighter with our products and services.

Source: https://leehamnews.com/2009/01/27/eadsa ... mpetition/

The real reason is of course that it would be politically impossible for the US to select the A380 for the president, no matter how much more suitable it would be for the task.

Finn350 wrote:

The real reason is of course that it would be politically impossible for the US to select the A380 for the president, no matter how much more suitable it would be for the task.

And of course, looking at the current situation it may also prove physically impossible to select the 747 as it will soon no longer exist. The US Air Force upper hierarchy do realise this don't they ?

Have the current crop of modern Boeing twin jets also been considered, especially the 777W and X projects which already have displaced the 747 within general airline fleets, and ought to be doing exactly the same with the Presidential fleet ? Or are the 'stuck in the past' USAF still insistent on a 'four holer' for whoever occupys the White House in 20 years ? Hey, in the meantime Trump has a lovely 757 he likes to jet around in.

JannEejit wrote:

And of course, looking at the current situation it may also prove physically impossible to select the 747 as it will soon no longer exist. The US Air Force upper hierarchy do realise this don't they ?

Have the current crop of modern Boeing twin jets also been considered, especially the 777W and X projects which already have displaced the 747 within general airline fleets, and ought to be doing exactly the same with the Presidential fleet ? Or are the 'stuck in the past' USAF still insistent on a 'four holer' for whoever occupys the White House in 20 years ? Hey, in the meantime Trump has a lovely 757 he likes to jet around in.

I am sure Boeing has taken into account producing two presidential 747-8 frames before closing the production line. After all, as there isn't and cannot be competition, Boeing can set the price they want for the frames.

scbriml wrote:

Can't see it happening myself. Fancy a little wager? I might not be around to see the result, though!

If you're dead, you can't pay me my money. Not saying that you are old, but perhaps I'll look for a younger partner for that bet then... ^^

Hardly surprising.
The Boeing Company has been beating a (big) dead horse for a very long time with the 747 programme.

When talking about a future product, Boeing is very affirmative. Launch will be that date, weight will be this, CASM that, etc. Then it doesn't happen like announced.

Here it's conditional conditional conditional.

Interesting.

CARST wrote:

SEPilot wrote:

What are they going to do next time 30 years from now? I am quite sure that the only airliners being built then will be twins. Will they demand a specially designed and built plane just for AF1? THAT will be expensive.

Okay, I'll bite. In 30 years everyone will be flying on blended wing bodies with 8-10 engines mounted on the tail of these game-changing designs.

Electric engines.

Or the planet will be a wasteland and we'll all be living underground and doing lots of virtual conferencing, no need to move.