Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 2653
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

Re: 747-8 Currently Cash Positive?

Wed Feb 13, 2019 5:55 am

Stitch wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
I think the 777F can do everything the 747-8 can do (except nose loading, which is rare and there are already enough planes around to do that). Now it might take 1.3 777's to replace a 747-8 ...


Well a 747-8 will lift 30,000kg / 200 cubic meters more payload so it can generate a fair bit more revenue per flight.

And if you need three 777Fs to carry the load of two 747-8Fs, well there goes any efficiency advantage of the 777F had. Boeing's own marketing gives the 747-8 a 2% better operating cost advantage than the 777F, but that does take into account the 30% greater lifting capacity of the 747-8.


And it also depends on the range that is needed. Extra range capability means higher zero fuel weight to enable the the plane to carry more fuel to fly further. UPS would rather stop over at ANC with a 748F than fly nonstop from China on a 777F. Given their role as a package carrier, they need more volume than weight capacity, because their freight is less dense. Considering they had the chance to buy either the 748F or the 777F indicates that the 748F numbers work better for their business model.
 
smartplane
Posts: 1567
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: 747-8 Currently Cash Positive?

Wed Feb 13, 2019 10:27 am

seabosdca wrote:
smartplane wrote:
The buyback will cut in around Y12, and decay until Y20. Likely two tiered, with a lower value if returned for performance issues, and higher if the condition subsequent issues (model out of production, parts unavailable, parts unavailable at pre-determined cost) have triggered.

The reason talk of closing the line down ceased in 2016, was presumably someone re-read the LH contract Addendum.


Let's assume for the sake of argument that your description of the LH deal is accurate.

It's hard to imagine that the buyback amount for all of the frames, in the very worst-case scenario (Boeing shuts the line and stops selling all parts), would be more than $1 billion.

Would a $1 billion potential charge, quite likely ameliorated by a 779 order for replacements, really be enough to cause Boeing to keep building money-losing $200M airplanes indefinitely? I don't see it.

smartplane wrote:
Wonder why Airbus isn't talking line closure?


Seems to me like they are. They're "in discussions" with EK and are systematically clearing the decks of all other orders.

Buybacks erode over time. 19x 748i's at Y12 surely have to be more valuable than USD53m a copy, so definitely over USD1b in the worst case scenario.

Airbus isn't publicly discussing line closure, for the same reason Boeing stopped. Both have live buybacks, and neither wants to trigger those clauses. In the case of Airbus, not only buybacks, but retrospective credits on undelivered, unconditional orders too.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1867
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: 747-8 Currently Cash Positive?

Wed Feb 13, 2019 12:37 pm

seabosdca wrote:
Stitch wrote:
Well a 747-8 will lift 30,000kg / 200 cubic meters more payload so it can generate a fair bit more revenue per flight.


:checkmark:

The 747-8F's trump card isn't the nose door; it's the 140 t payload. That makes its economics unbeatable for super-heavy cargo even with empty weight and engine SFC coming up a bit short of promises.

The 777F is limited to 103 t payload, and it's hard to imagine any way the inevitable 777-8F could improve that beyond 115 t or so even with a MTOW increase, which won't be a trivial job. Granted, such a payload improvement might tip the balance in favor of trading 3 748Fs for 4 778Fs, at least for high-utilization operators.

Edit: Pretty critical typo...

Realistically, who uses the full 140 t payload of the 747-8F?
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 4123
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

Re: 747-8 Currently Cash Positive?

Wed Feb 13, 2019 2:24 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
The 747-8 successfully prevented Airbus from charging high prices for the A380.

That's a pretty declarative statement, for something that has essentially nil public evidence to substantiate, relative to alternative explanations.


And even if so, it's not like that charging higher prices for the A380 would have strengthened its market position and number of sales . . . .
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27310
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: 747-8 Currently Cash Positive?

Wed Feb 13, 2019 4:38 pm

WayexTDI wrote:
Realistically, who uses the full 140 t payload of the 747-8F?


It's actually 134,000kg and the head of Cathay Cargo stated in an interview a few years back that intra-Asia they can hit that number and they're closer to 125,000kg on their longer routes.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1867
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: 747-8 Currently Cash Positive?

Wed Feb 13, 2019 4:46 pm

Stitch wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
Realistically, who uses the full 140 t payload of the 747-8F?


It's actually 134,000kg and the head of Cathay Cargo stated in an interview a few years back that intra-Asia they can hit that number and they're closer to 125,000kg on their longer routes.

OK, let's split in halfway: 137,700 kg (303,700 lbs) per Boeing.
Obviously, at least one airline needs the 747-8F; then it did find a market, I stand corrected.
 
mxaxai
Posts: 2059
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: 747-8 Currently Cash Positive?

Wed Feb 13, 2019 5:51 pm

WayexTDI wrote:
Stitch wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
Realistically, who uses the full 140 t payload of the 747-8F?


It's actually 134,000kg and the head of Cathay Cargo stated in an interview a few years back that intra-Asia they can hit that number and they're closer to 125,000kg on their longer routes.

OK, let's split in halfway: 137,700 kg (303,700 lbs) per Boeing.
Obviously, at least one airline needs the 747-8F; then it did find a market, I stand corrected.

Well, so did the A380. :duck:

The more interesting question is where the 747-8 fleet will stand in a few years. The fleet size is comparable to the A340-500/600, and those got hurt by high maintenance costs due to the small fleet size. The A340-600 is more efficient than the 747-400 but several operators chose to retire the A340 first. Other types that face(d) this problem are the A380, the SSJ, the MD-11 and the MD-90. Of course Boeing will expect some maintenance revenue - it may actually be that the sale price alone does not cover manufacturing costs - but if they set the price too high, operators will park them after 10 to 12 years.
The 747F offers some unique capabilities but 90% of operators can easily switch to another type, much like what we see with the A380.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27310
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: 747-8 Currently Cash Positive?

Wed Feb 13, 2019 5:58 pm

mxaxai wrote:
The more interesting question is where the 747-8 fleet will stand in a few years. The fleet size is comparable to the A340-500/600, and those got hurt by high maintenance costs due to the small fleet size. The A340-600 is more efficient than the 747-400 but several operators chose to retire the A340 first. Other types that face(d) this problem are the A380, the SSJ, the MD-11 and the MD-90. Of course Boeing will expect some maintenance revenue - it may actually be that the sale price alone does not cover manufacturing costs - but if they set the price too high, operators will park them after 10 to 12 years.
The 747F offers some unique capabilities but 90% of operators can easily switch to another type, much like what we see with the A380.


The airlines that bought the 747-8 knew what they were getting into because the 777-300ER and the A380-800 were already in development or revenue service when they purchased them. The MD-11 and A340 were a bit blind-sided by the 777, which arrived on the scene after they were ordered. As such, I believe they were purchased more for addressing a specific market need and therefore will probably serve for some time assuming fuel stays cheap and traffic stays strong.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6607
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Re: 747-8 Currently Cash Positive?

Wed Feb 13, 2019 6:18 pm

smartplane wrote:
Buybacks erode over time. 19x 748i's at Y12 surely have to be more valuable than USD53m a copy, so definitely over USD1b in the worst case scenario.


Let's imagine then that it's just short of $2B (I doubt it is, but just for the sake of argument). Surely no one is going to argue that a 12-year-old 748 passenger frame with ~65k hours and ~10k cycles, purchased for probably $160M new, is worth more than $100M. I still don't see that as an amount that is going to induce Boeing to sell years' worth of frames at a significant loss.

Airbus isn't publicly discussing line closure, for the same reason Boeing stopped. Both have live buybacks, and neither wants to trigger those clauses. In the case of Airbus, not only buybacks, but retrospective credits on undelivered, unconditional orders too.


Do you think Airbus is going to keep assembling A380s at a loss indefinitely for this reason?
 
steeler83
Posts: 7700
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 2:06 pm

Re: 747-8 Currently Cash Positive?

Wed Feb 13, 2019 6:32 pm

WayexTDI wrote:
steeler83 wrote:
N328KF wrote:

The 747-8 certainly killed the A380F, but for the passenger side, I think the credit goes to the 787-10, A350, and 777X in terms of operating costs.

I second that. I wish more airlines could've ordeeed the 747-8i, but I have sincere doubts it will happen. UA and DL have 773ERs in their fleet (and I think the A350s) which can do the same things the 748 could. So, when the 744s went, they went.

I so badly want to fly on one of these birds before they're gone, and I can see I'm quickly running out of time. :(

DL doesn't have 777-300ER's; only 777-200ER's (8 of them) and 777-200LR's (10 of them)
UA doesn't have A350's yet.

Oh ok, my bad. I guess forgot who ordered what aircraft to replace their 744 fleet. In any event, it's going to be sad to see the pax 747 fleet become a relic. With aircraft like the 777x, A350, 787-10, 4-hole planes and jumbo jets are rendered obsolete. I saw a while back that someone had mentioned a single stretch vs. a double stretch for the 748, but I'm not sure what kind of advantage if any that would have had over the 777/787/A350 variants. What could Boeing possibly consider at this point to make the 748i more desirable?
Do not bring stranger girt into your room. The stranger girt is dangerous, it will hurt your life.
 
smartplane
Posts: 1567
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: 747-8 Currently Cash Positive?

Wed Feb 13, 2019 7:19 pm

seabosdca wrote:
smartplane wrote:
Buybacks erode over time. 19x 748i's at Y12 surely have to be more valuable than USD53m a copy, so definitely over USD1b in the worst case scenario.


Let's imagine then that it's just short of $2B (I doubt it is, but just for the sake of argument). Surely no one is going to argue that a 12-year-old 748 passenger frame with ~65k hours and ~10k cycles, purchased for probably $160M new, is worth more than $100M. I still don't see that as an amount that is going to induce Boeing to sell years' worth of frames at a significant loss.

Airbus isn't publicly discussing line closure, for the same reason Boeing stopped. Both have live buybacks, and neither wants to trigger those clauses. In the case of Airbus, not only buybacks, but retrospective credits on undelivered, unconditional orders too.


Do you think Airbus is going to keep assembling A380s at a loss indefinitely for this reason?

The A380 buyback numbers are of a magnitude many times higher. Airbus need EK to make the decision, so buybacks aren't triggered, and the credits lapse. If Airbus makes the decision, both will be in play, and RR will be in line for compensation too.
 
jeffrey0032j
Posts: 863
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:11 pm

Re: 747-8 Currently Cash Positive?

Wed Feb 13, 2019 7:29 pm

WayexTDI wrote:
seabosdca wrote:
Stitch wrote:
Well a 747-8 will lift 30,000kg / 200 cubic meters more payload so it can generate a fair bit more revenue per flight.


:checkmark:

The 747-8F's trump card isn't the nose door; it's the 140 t payload. That makes its economics unbeatable for super-heavy cargo even with empty weight and engine SFC coming up a bit short of promises.

The 777F is limited to 103 t payload, and it's hard to imagine any way the inevitable 777-8F could improve that beyond 115 t or so even with a MTOW increase, which won't be a trivial job. Granted, such a payload improvement might tip the balance in favor of trading 3 748Fs for 4 778Fs, at least for high-utilization operators.

Edit: Pretty critical typo...

Realistically, who uses the full 140 t payload of the 747-8F?

You'll never know when you receive a call asking to carry heavy equipment. The strength of the 747-8F is not whether it gets the full payload all the time, but the flexibility to accept heavy payloads or oddsized cargo once in a while in a manner that is much cheaper than calling Antonov or Volga Dnepr for specialist air freight transport.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1867
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: 747-8 Currently Cash Positive?

Wed Feb 13, 2019 7:39 pm

jeffrey0032j wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
seabosdca wrote:

:checkmark:

The 747-8F's trump card isn't the nose door; it's the 140 t payload. That makes its economics unbeatable for super-heavy cargo even with empty weight and engine SFC coming up a bit short of promises.

The 777F is limited to 103 t payload, and it's hard to imagine any way the inevitable 777-8F could improve that beyond 115 t or so even with a MTOW increase, which won't be a trivial job. Granted, such a payload improvement might tip the balance in favor of trading 3 748Fs for 4 778Fs, at least for high-utilization operators.

Edit: Pretty critical typo...

Realistically, who uses the full 140 t payload of the 747-8F?

You'll never know when you receive a call asking to carry heavy equipment. The strength of the 747-8F is not whether it gets the full payload all the time, but the flexibility to accept heavy payloads or oddsized cargo once in a while in a manner that is much cheaper than calling Antonov or Volga Dnepr for specialist air freight transport.

Problem with that reasoning is that you perfectly justified why the 747-8i and the A380 were created: "just in case"... We know the result.

You don't buy heavy equipment "just in case"; you buy it because there is a solid demand for it.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6607
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Re: 747-8 Currently Cash Positive?

Wed Feb 13, 2019 7:55 pm

WayexTDI wrote:
You don't buy heavy equipment "just in case"; you buy it because there is a solid demand for it.


And clearly there is, as the 777F and the 748F both continue to sell alongside each other. Some combination of payload, volume, and nose door pays for the operating cost premium of the 748 for some operators.-- I believe, in that order.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1867
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: 747-8 Currently Cash Positive?

Wed Feb 13, 2019 8:06 pm

seabosdca wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
You don't buy heavy equipment "just in case"; you buy it because there is a solid demand for it.


And clearly there is, as the 777F and the 748F both continue to sell alongside each other. Some combination of payload, volume, and nose door pays for the operating cost premium of the 748 for some operators.-- I believe, in that order.

And that proves that operators use the 747-8F at least over the payload of the 777F on a regular basis; not "just in case someone calls".

According to posts 105 & 106 Cathay Cargo uses it close to the max payload on a regular basis, so there are airlines that need it for that.
This was answered prior to post 112 that you decided to snip out.
 
mham001
Posts: 5745
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:52 am

Re: 747-8 Currently Cash Positive?

Wed Feb 13, 2019 8:12 pm

This Seeking Alpha article came out today on Boeing pricing. Maybe he has some clues. https://seekingalpha.com/article/424019 ... ft-pricing
 
jeffrey0032j
Posts: 863
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:11 pm

Re: 747-8 Currently Cash Positive?

Wed Feb 13, 2019 8:51 pm

WayexTDI wrote:
jeffrey0032j wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
Realistically, who uses the full 140 t payload of the 747-8F?

You'll never know when you receive a call asking to carry heavy equipment. The strength of the 747-8F is not whether it gets the full payload all the time, but the flexibility to accept heavy payloads or oddsized cargo once in a while in a manner that is much cheaper than calling Antonov or Volga Dnepr for specialist air freight transport.

Problem with that reasoning is that you perfectly justified why the 747-8i and the A380 were created: "just in case"... We know the result.

You don't buy heavy equipment "just in case"; you buy it because there is a solid demand for it.

Explain to me how and why Antonov and Volga Dnepr exist, how they operate and the effects of not having these airlines. You may find your answer there. The 748F has a similar role sometimes, albeit for smaller loads (that are still too big or heavy for 777Fs).
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1867
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: 747-8 Currently Cash Positive?

Wed Feb 13, 2019 9:08 pm

jeffrey0032j wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
jeffrey0032j wrote:
You'll never know when you receive a call asking to carry heavy equipment. The strength of the 747-8F is not whether it gets the full payload all the time, but the flexibility to accept heavy payloads or oddsized cargo once in a while in a manner that is much cheaper than calling Antonov or Volga Dnepr for specialist air freight transport.

Problem with that reasoning is that you perfectly justified why the 747-8i and the A380 were created: "just in case"... We know the result.

You don't buy heavy equipment "just in case"; you buy it because there is a solid demand for it.

Explain to me how and why Antonov and Volga Dnepr exist, how they operate and the effects of not having these airlines. You may find your answer there. The 748F has a similar role sometimes, albeit for smaller loads (that are still too big or heavy for 777Fs).

The An-124 does exist for that purpose, I agree. But it's volume, payload and accessibility is unmatched by anything else; so it doesn't really have competition.
The 747-8F, on the other hand, has a payload only slightly higher than that of the 777F (meaning the latter can do most of the weight carrying of the former); anything that requires front loading (and again, how often does that happen?) can be carried as needed by the An-124.
The 747-8F is too close from the 777F in terms of payload to justify the "in case", and too far from the An-124 in terms of volume or accessibility.

In any case, it has been shown that some airlines (Cathay Cargo at least) regularly (and not occasionally, once in a blue moon) uses the 747-8F above the 777F capacity and I did say I stood corrected.

Do you need me to say I was wrong? There you go: I was wrong, some airlines do indeed need the capability of the 747-8F on a regular basis.
Case closed.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 1538
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: 747-8 Currently Cash Positive?

Wed Feb 13, 2019 9:26 pm

seabosdca wrote:
Stitch wrote:
Well a 747-8 will lift 30,000kg / 200 cubic meters more payload so it can generate a fair bit more revenue per flight.


:checkmark:

The 747-8F's trump card isn't the nose door; it's the 140 t payload. That makes its economics unbeatable for super-heavy cargo even with empty weight and engine SFC coming up a bit short of promises.

The 777F is limited to 103 t payload, and it's hard to imagine any way the inevitable 777-8F could improve that beyond 115 t or so even with a MTOW increase, which won't be a trivial job. Granted, such a payload improvement might tip the balance in favor of trading 3 748Fs for 4 778Fs, at least for high-utilization operators.

Edit: Pretty critical typo...



I feel like the super-heavy cargo market is pretty limited, just like the nose door market.

How often does one send by air a single item that a 777 cannot lift, but a 747 can?
 
jagraham
Posts: 1145
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: 747-8 Currently Cash Positive?

Wed Feb 13, 2019 9:33 pm

seabosdca wrote:
Stitch wrote:
Well a 747-8 will lift 30,000kg / 200 cubic meters more payload so it can generate a fair bit more revenue per flight.


:checkmark:

The 747-8F's trump card isn't the nose door; it's the 140 t payload. That makes its economics unbeatable for super-heavy cargo even with empty weight and engine SFC coming up a bit short of promises.

The 777F is limited to 103 t payload, and it's hard to imagine any way the inevitable 777-8F could improve that beyond 115 t or so even with a MTOW increase, which won't be a trivial job. Granted, such a payload improvement might tip the balance in favor of trading 3 748Fs for 4 778Fs, at least for high-utilization operators.

Edit: Pretty critical typo...


:checkmark:
btw - with the 779 max payload being just under 74t, the weight reduction for the 778 probably won't get it to 110t. Before a 778F model ups the OEW some for the floor changeout.
The fuel economy for a 778F should be better than the 777F, but any payload increase has to have a MTOW increase to go with it.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 1538
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: 747-8 Currently Cash Positive?

Wed Feb 13, 2019 9:36 pm

I'm trying to understand the arguments I'm reading here. Please correct my understanding.

One reason to buy the 748 is the nose door. Small market. But when you need it there is no option, so it's good to have some planes with it.

Another reason is that you need to move more freight per day than a 777 can carry, but less than two 777s. A 777 can carry 621 m^3 of cargo, and a 748 can carry 860m^3, so that seems a small window.

Also, a 748 is 3% more efficient than a 777, which seems of small benefit since you are flying a larger aircraft.

So why are (some) companies buying 747s instead of 777F?
 
mxaxai
Posts: 2059
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: 747-8 Currently Cash Positive?

Wed Feb 13, 2019 9:37 pm

Stitch wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
The more interesting question is where the 747-8 fleet will stand in a few years. The fleet size is comparable to the A340-500/600, and those got hurt by high maintenance costs due to the small fleet size. The A340-600 is more efficient than the 747-400 but several operators chose to retire the A340 first. Other types that face(d) this problem are the A380, the SSJ, the MD-11 and the MD-90. Of course Boeing will expect some maintenance revenue - it may actually be that the sale price alone does not cover manufacturing costs - but if they set the price too high, operators will park them after 10 to 12 years.
The 747F offers some unique capabilities but 90% of operators can easily switch to another type, much like what we see with the A380.


The airlines that bought the 747-8 knew what they were getting into because the 777-300ER and the A380-800 were already in development or revenue service when they purchased them. The MD-11 and A340 were a bit blind-sided by the 777, which arrived on the scene after they were ordered. As such, I believe they were purchased more for addressing a specific market need and therefore will probably serve for some time assuming fuel stays cheap and traffic stays strong.

Yes and no. Of course they knew what the aircraft offered, but so did airlines in the case of the A340-600. A few even placed follow-up orders. I find it quite telling that Lufthansa chose to park 8 A340-600s - some less than 12 years old - and is replacing them with the A350, while their much older 747-400 fleet has to wait for the 777-9. The A340 is just so expensive to maintain that it outweighs any advantage in efficiency or age. I fully expect LH to look for a replacement for their 747-8 & A380 fleets by 2025. The heavy checks might force their early retirement.
Most freight operators will face the same problem.
 
mxaxai
Posts: 2059
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: 747-8 Currently Cash Positive?

Wed Feb 13, 2019 9:48 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
So why are (some) companies buying 747s instead of 777F?

I'm sure commonality with the 747-400 played a role in several cases:

AirBridgeCargo Airlines - pure 747 operator
Cargolux Airlines - pure 747 operator
Cathay Pacific - previous 747 operator
Nippon Cargo Airlines - pure 747 operator
Qatar Airways - idk
Silk Way Airlines - primarily 747 operator, plus a few soviet aircraft
UPS Airlines - previous 747 operator

Meanwhile, FedEx with a very similar business model to UPS never operated the 747-400F and now has a large 777F fleet.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27310
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: 747-8 Currently Cash Positive?

Wed Feb 13, 2019 10:00 pm

WayexTDI wrote:
The 747-8F, on the other hand, has a payload only slightly higher than that of the 777F (meaning the latter can do most of the weight carrying of the former)...


You are correct in noting a cargo operator would not buy a 747-8 unless they could maximize it's payload weight and volume, but the 777F and 748F play in different market segments and there is almost no overlap between the two models in terms of operator.

A 777F will lift 90% of the weight and 85% of the volume of a 747-400F. I can't find direct operating cost comparisons, but based on Boeing's data for the 744F and 777F vs the 742F, the 777F offers around 12% lower operating costs than the 744F.

A 747-8F can lift 20% more payload weight and 8% more volume than a 747-400F with around 14% lower operating costs.

So the 777F was a solid replacement or expansion option for 747-400F operators who were not taxing the capacity (weight and volume) of their frames whereas the 747-8F offered a growth opportunity for those who were.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27310
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: 747-8 Currently Cash Positive?

Wed Feb 13, 2019 10:06 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
How often does one send by air a single item that a 777 cannot lift, but a 747 can?


Probably not very often. But then, you do not buy a freighter to carry just one specialized item - you rent a freighter (usually an An-124) for that. :biggrin:


kitplane01 wrote:
So why are (some) companies buying 747s instead of 777F?


Because they carry a lot of items that together weigh a fair amount. Depending on how many items they generally carry and how much they weigh in total influenced whether they purchased a 777 freighter or a 747 freighter.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 1538
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: 747-8 Currently Cash Positive?

Thu Feb 14, 2019 5:05 am

Stitch wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
The 747-8F, on the other hand, has a payload only slightly higher than that of the 777F (meaning the latter can do most of the weight carrying of the former)...


You are correct in noting a cargo operator would not buy a 747-8 unless they could maximize it's payload weight and volume, but the 777F and 748F play in different market segments and there is almost no overlap between the two models in terms of operator.



Why?

A 748 is maybe 20% bigger than a 777F. How is that "different market segments"?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27310
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: 747-8 Currently Cash Positive?

Thu Feb 14, 2019 5:14 am

kitplane01 wrote:
Why? A 748 is maybe 20% bigger than a 777F. How is that "different market segments"?


That is a question better asked of the operators who chose either model.
 
ihmcallister
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 10:14 am

Re: 747-8 Currently Cash Positive?

Thu Feb 14, 2019 10:12 am

With the USAF asking for C-17 production to restart, which is unlikely, would there a place for the 747-8F as a USAF strategic freighter? I don't believe that's pie-in-the-sky stuff either. Much of the work done by the C-17 is simple cargo transportation that doesn't need that aircraft's specialist tactical theatre skills (short-field or ramp-loading capability, etc). A fleet of 747-8F's would provide a massively capable long-range strategic tool for the USAF, freeing up C-17 units to do what they are needed for. The USAF is already acquiring two -8I models to be AF1 and AF2. Commonality starts with the second aircraft.
Last time I did the tour at Everett, the week UPS placed their 14 (+14) order in November 2016, the guides were saying they would anticipate more sales going forward a few years, as major freight operators started to look at replacement of 747-400s (Singapore Cargo etc.) I guess they are still chasing those. UPS provided a stopgap which is still open.
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 1868
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: 747-8 Currently Cash Positive?

Thu Feb 14, 2019 12:55 pm

SC430 wrote:
WIederling wrote:
Only your numbers are all wrong.

I would GUESS, your guess is way off......... either way the 748-I is not a financial disaster by any definition, which was the question at hand...


The A380 investment was regularly overinflated on here, and each GUESS taken as the truth and used for the next wildly pessimistic exaggeration. You've even managed yourself to go from the last GUESS I read of $25b to $28b :roll:

Last vaguely factual estimates I remember hearing were around $13-15b for the A380 and $5-8b for the 747-8. Considering the numbers of aircraft sold versus those investments, in my opinion the 747 is at least as likely to be a "financial disaster" as the A380 was.
"As with most things related to aircraft design, it's all about the trade-offs and much more nuanced than A.net likes to make out."
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27310
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: 747-8 Currently Cash Positive?

Thu Feb 14, 2019 1:24 pm

ihmcallister wrote:
With the USAF asking for C-17 production to restart, which is unlikely, would there a place for the 747-8F as a USAF strategic freighter? I don't believe that's pie-in-the-sky stuff either. Much of the work done by the C-17 is simple cargo transportation that doesn't need that aircraft's specialist tactical theatre skills (short-field or ramp-loading capability, etc). A fleet of 747-8F's would provide a massively capable long-range strategic tool for the USAF, freeing up C-17 units to do what they are needed for. The USAF is already acquiring two -8I models to be AF1 and AF2. Commonality starts with the second aircraft.


Tyler Rogoway of The Warzone back in October wrote an opinion piece that both the KC-46A and the 747-8F could perhaps work in this role.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 1538
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: 747-8 Currently Cash Positive?

Thu Feb 14, 2019 4:39 pm

Stitch wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
Why? A 748 is maybe 20% bigger than a 777F. How is that "different market segments"?


That is a question better asked of the operators who chose either model.


You wrote “different market segments“. I was curious why you thought that was true.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27310
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: 747-8 Currently Cash Positive?

Thu Feb 14, 2019 6:46 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
You wrote “different market segments“. I was curious why you thought that was true.


Fair enough.

I see the 747-8F addressing the "heavy lift" market segment with average payload weights over 100,000kg.

I see the 777F addressing the "upper-medium lift" market segment with average payload weights between 75,000 and 100,000kg.

I see the 767F and A330F addressing the "lower-medium lift" market segment with average payload weights between 40,000 and 70,000kg.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 1538
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: 747-8 Currently Cash Positive?

Thu Feb 14, 2019 9:31 pm

Stitch wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
You wrote “different market segments“. I was curious why you thought that was true.


Fair enough.

I see the 747-8F addressing the "heavy lift" market segment with average payload weights over 100,000kg.

I see the 777F addressing the "upper-medium lift" market segment with average payload weights between 75,000 and 100,000kg.

I see the 767F and A330F addressing the "lower-medium lift" market segment with average payload weights between 40,000 and 70,000kg.


I gotta say I think the 747 and the 777 are the same segment. I bet you are right that few operators do both. I would take that to mean they are alternatives and fulfilling basically the same need.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27310
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: 747-8 Currently Cash Positive?

Thu Feb 14, 2019 9:45 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
I gotta say I think the 747 and the 777 are the same segment. I bet you are right that few operators do both. I would take that to mean they are alternatives and fulfilling basically the same need.


Well the 777F definitely impinged on the 744F which likely helped drive Boeing to offer the larger 748F to put some space between them.

Beyond weight lifting capability, there is also pallet dimension considerations. Air France, a 747-400F operator, added the 777F to their fleet and found that the smaller fuselage dimensions meant they could not directly interline their 747 pallets because they were built-up to closely conform to a 747's fuselage to maximize their volume. So they had to break those pallets down and remake them to fit in the 777F.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2081
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: 747-8 Currently Cash Positive?

Thu Feb 14, 2019 10:12 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
Also, a 748 is 3% more efficient than a 777, which seems of small benefit since you are flying a larger aircraft.

So why are (some) companies buying 747s instead of 777F?

You answered your question. The 747-8 is 3% and the cost per kg of payload is less.

Unlike passenger airlines cargo operators do not have capacity risk if flying a larger aircraft. They have extreme consistency over many years. No angry passengers if the day of the flight gets changed.

This is how the cargo operation works on a single route. They keep a buffer of cargo at departure airport of around one full plane. If you have a daily 747-8 flight always leaving with 120T of payload. Lets say only 100T of freight arrives for quite a few days in a row and the buffer runs out. The operator simply cancels one flight and the buffer goes back to 120T.

Likewise if they started to receive 140T of freight per day and the buffer was increasing up to 200T they could plan a double daily flight the following week to bring it back down to an 80T buffer.

Cargo operators can move aircraft between routes. They have low utilisation so they have the ability to increase flights. Over Christmas the fleet simply works harder and they make sure they have enough pilots. They obviously plan for this as the date for Christmas never changes they probably have pilots that only work part time during peak periods.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2081
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: 747-8 Currently Cash Positive?

Thu Feb 14, 2019 10:22 pm

jagraham wrote:
btw - with the 779 max payload being just under 74t, the weight reduction for the 778 probably won't get it to 110t. Before a 778F model ups the OEW some for the floor changeout.
The fuel economy for a 778F should be better than the 777F, but any payload increase has to have a MTOW increase to go with it.

Has Boeing even said they will do a 778F? That appears to be an airliners.net creation.

The numbers simply do not work out with the increased empty weight. As you say it would need a MTOW bump, how many billions of dollars would that cost?

Putting 797 engines on the 747-8 would definitely cost less and that would be more efficient than any 777-8 freighter. That is why the 747-8NEO will definitely happen.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27310
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: 747-8 Currently Cash Positive?

Thu Feb 14, 2019 10:26 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
Putting 797 engines on the 747-8 would definitely cost less and that would be more efficient than any 777-8 freighter. That is why the 747-8NEO will definitely happen.


Will the 797 really need engines nearside of 70,000 pounds I'm thrust? That's 777-200A levels of performance for an airframe that should be less than two-thirds the empty weight.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2081
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: 747-8 Currently Cash Positive?

Thu Feb 14, 2019 10:29 pm

ihmcallister wrote:
With the USAF asking for C-17 production to restart, which is unlikely, would there a place for the 747-8F as a USAF strategic freighter? I don't believe that's pie-in-the-sky stuff either.

I have said this many times and always get told that it is cheaper to just rent 747 freighters from the commercial operators. This is where many of the current 747 freighters get used.

USAF pilots and maintenance crew are very inefficient apparently.

I strongly believe the USAF should buy dozens of 747-8F's and roll some basic freight handling equipment to their airports.
 
jreuschl
Posts: 412
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 3:04 am

Re: 747-8 Currently Cash Positive?

Thu Feb 14, 2019 10:38 pm

Is the 747-8I really dead or could Boeing sell it?

I realize that even with the A380 being cancelled, I have a better chance of having a winning lottery ticket than one being sold, but, just asking :)
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2081
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: 747-8 Currently Cash Positive?

Thu Feb 14, 2019 10:39 pm

Stitch wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
Putting 797 engines on the 747-8 would definitely cost less and that would be more efficient than any 777-8 freighter. That is why the 747-8NEO will definitely happen.


Will the 797 really need engines nearside of 70,000 pounds I'm thrust? That's 777-200A levels of performance for an airframe that should be less than two-thirds the empty weight.

The 747-8 freighters engines are nearly exactly half way between the proposed 797 engines and the 787-10 engines. The 797 engine thrust numbers reported are unusually high.

As engined mature they get run hotter and increase thrust. The 797 engine will be the most likely option to grow into the 747-8NEO engine. This is a far more optimised option than putting a smaller fan on the 787 engine.
 
User avatar
Spacepope
Posts: 4779
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

Re: 747-8 Currently Cash Positive?

Thu Feb 14, 2019 10:42 pm

ihmcallister wrote:
With the USAF asking for C-17 production to restart, which is unlikely, would there a place for the 747-8F as a USAF strategic freighter?


Oh i'd love to see your source on that claim. They were reportedly pissed that congress forced them to buy the last several dozen airframes that they got as they really didn't need or want even those.
The last of the famous international playboys
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6607
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Re: 747-8 Currently Cash Positive?

Thu Feb 14, 2019 10:50 pm

jreuschl wrote:
Is the 747-8I really dead or could Boeing sell it?


Boeing could sell a bucket of bolts at the right price. Unfortunately for 747 fans, the customers' right price for the 747-8 would be far less profitable for Boeing (likely not profitable at all) than the right price for the 777-9. By modern standards it is heavy, maintenance-intensive, not particularly good aerodynamically, and not particularly fuel-efficient.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27310
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: 747-8 Currently Cash Positive?

Thu Feb 14, 2019 10:52 pm

jreuschl wrote:
Is the 747-8I really dead or could Boeing sell it?


It has been almost two years since the last airline delivery (Korean Air) and over a year since the last BBJ. I would expect the suppliers have already closed-up shop so Boeing would likely have to pull from spares, which would mean they could likely only do a couple.


ihmcallister wrote:
With the USAF asking for C-17 production to restart, which is unlikely, would there a place for the 747-8F as a USAF strategic freighter?

Spacepope wrote:
Oh i'd love to see your source on that claim. They were reportedly pissed that congress forced them to buy the last several dozen airframes that they got as they really didn't need or want even those.


In October 2018 at a roundtable with reporters, Air Mobility Command (AMC) boss General Maryanne Miller noted that as part of a desired significant expansion of the USAF she wanted to cut two C-130 squadrons and add three C-17 squadrons through she admitted that when it came to how the AMC would add three more C-17 squadrons, she said "Those are the details that we have not looked at".

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-sho ... tion-line/
 
User avatar
DarkSnowyNight
Posts: 2715
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:59 pm

Re: 747-8 Currently Cash Positive?

Thu Feb 14, 2019 10:54 pm

jreuschl wrote:
Is the 747-8I really dead or could Boeing sell it?

I realize that even with the A380 being cancelled, I have a better chance of having a winning lottery ticket than one being sold, but, just asking :)


Sure. But they'd have to discount them steeply enough that BCA's shareholders will sharpen their pitchforks and light up their torches. And they'd have to come up with an engine MX plan a la RR & the A340NGs. And they'd have to pre-authorize a fuel penalty/incentive to cover costs greater than a 779. Do that, (in all seriousness), and I have no lack of confidence they'd get orders. It's not as though airlines hate these things. There are just so many better options.

RJMAZ wrote:
The 747-8 freighters engines are nearly exactly half way between the proposed 797 engines and the 787-10 engines. The 797 engine thrust numbers reported are unusually high.

As engined mature they get run hotter and increase thrust. The 797 engine will be the most likely option to grow into the 747-8NEO engine. This is a far more optimised option than putting a smaller fan on the 787 engine.


While I admire your optimism, you should know there will never be any such thing as a 748NEO/MAX, etc. No matter what happens WRT powerplants, there's nothing that can be put on a 747 that can't find it's way to a 787, 779, etc.

And there won't be any convincing BCA to hold open line space that can be used for 779, 789, 78J, 76F, etc.
"Nous ne sommes pas infectés. Il n'y a pas d'infection ici..."
 
User avatar
QuarkFly
Posts: 369
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 4:20 pm

Re: 747-8 Currently Cash Positive?

Thu Feb 14, 2019 11:07 pm

I doubt very much that Boeing is making any money off the 747-8 line at a rate of 6 frames per year. I'm sure they gave UPS a bargain deal for the freighters which is keeping keep the line open. B obviously did not spend near as much developing the 747-8 as A spent on the A380... the engine is almost the same as the 787 GENx and GE spent $$ making that, same production facility in Everett ...otherwise the new wing and a modest stretch.

A few years ago, I thought the previous CEO, McNearny -- said the 747-8 would break even after maybe a few hundred (200 ?) deliveries. I think B is still waiting for a 747-400F freigher replacement cycle to develop...It may never happen if carriers don't want four engines and the special nose loading the 747 has.
Always take the Red Eye if possible
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27310
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: 747-8 Currently Cash Positive?

Thu Feb 14, 2019 11:35 pm

QuarkFly wrote:
I doubt very much that Boeing is making any money off the 747-8 line at a rate of 6 frames per year. I'm sure they gave UPS a bargain deal for the freighters which is keeping keep the line open.


Boeing actively looked to cancel the 747-8 and took significant write-downs in the 6-12 months prior to the UPS order. They had no incentive to offer UPS "a bargain" to keep the line open after they'd already written said line off. That being said, I am sure UPS received a nice price, but I also believe Boeing priced those frames at a net-positive return for them.
 
User avatar
monomojo
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2018 12:39 pm

Re: 747-8 Currently Cash Positive?

Thu Feb 14, 2019 11:59 pm

jreuschl wrote:
Is the 747-8I really dead or could Boeing sell it?

I realize that even with the A380 being cancelled, I have a better chance of having a winning lottery ticket than one being sold, but, just asking :)


Boeing has no incentive to spool up the specific supply chain to manufacture new -8Is in any numbers and at any price airlines would likely order them at. They'd much rather cut the airlines a nice deal on a 777-9X, or maybe even a -10X if there's enough interest in near-VLA capacity. That said, if there was some wild market shift where airlines were suddenly interested in buying 100 new 8Is, I'm sure accommodations could be made. Monkeys could also fly out of my butt.
 
iamlucky13
Posts: 1263
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

Re: 747-8 Currently Cash Positive?

Fri Feb 15, 2019 12:01 am

flyingclrs727 wrote:
And it also depends on the range that is needed. Extra range capability means higher zero fuel weight to enable the the plane to carry more fuel to fly further. UPS would rather stop over at ANC with a 748F than fly nonstop from China on a 777F. Given their role as a package carrier, they need more volume than weight capacity, because their freight is less dense. Considering they had the chance to buy either the 748F or the 777F indicates that the 748F numbers work better for their business model.


I don't know what payload weights UPS is typically carrying, but they are more than a package carrier. Just as a limited anecdote, I've sent and received a few crates or pallets of industrial machine parts by air that I know were shipped by UPS that from some quick math would easily overload a 747-8 if even only the main deck were filled with similar pallets.

I assume freight is a non-trivial percentage of what they move on their 747's.
 
jagraham
Posts: 1145
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: 747-8 Currently Cash Positive?

Fri Feb 15, 2019 12:18 am

RJMAZ wrote:
jagraham wrote:
btw - with the 779 max payload being just under 74t, the weight reduction for the 778 probably won't get it to 110t. Before a 778F model ups the OEW some for the floor changeout.
The fuel economy for a 778F should be better than the 777F, but any payload increase has to have a MTOW increase to go with it.

Has Boeing even said they will do a 778F? That appears to be an airliners.net creation.

The numbers simply do not work out with the increased empty weight. As you say it would need a MTOW bump, how many billions of dollars would that cost?

Putting 797 engines on the 747-8 would definitely cost less and that would be more efficient than any 777-8 freighter. That is why the 747-8NEO will definitely happen.


Yes it is an a.net creation! :spin: :bouncy: :biggrin: :stirthepot:

But for a 77F sized payload, a 778F will save fuel. As noted, the 778 is bigger and heavier, but with no more payload, - perversely - the better thing would be to put GE9x engines on the 77F and save the OEW. Of course that will take a while.

As far as 797 engines on the 748F, they look to be topping out at 50K, which would be a little short of 748 needs. Better to keep the GEnx-1s and piggyback on the GEnx 787 PIPs.

In summary, cargo works better with payloads that are larger than what passenger service has. And there is no shortcutting payload with cargo. So half of what is done to make a passenger plane more efficient doesn't work for a cargo plane. And the 77F and 748F remain competitive with new offerings.
 
LH707330
Posts: 2374
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

Re: 747-8 Currently Cash Positive?

Fri Feb 15, 2019 12:21 am

mxaxai wrote:
Stitch wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
The more interesting question is where the 747-8 fleet will stand in a few years. The fleet size is comparable to the A340-500/600, and those got hurt by high maintenance costs due to the small fleet size. The A340-600 is more efficient than the 747-400 but several operators chose to retire the A340 first. Other types that face(d) this problem are the A380, the SSJ, the MD-11 and the MD-90. Of course Boeing will expect some maintenance revenue - it may actually be that the sale price alone does not cover manufacturing costs - but if they set the price too high, operators will park them after 10 to 12 years.
The 747F offers some unique capabilities but 90% of operators can easily switch to another type, much like what we see with the A380.


The airlines that bought the 747-8 knew what they were getting into because the 777-300ER and the A380-800 were already in development or revenue service when they purchased them. The MD-11 and A340 were a bit blind-sided by the 777, which arrived on the scene after they were ordered. As such, I believe they were purchased more for addressing a specific market need and therefore will probably serve for some time assuming fuel stays cheap and traffic stays strong.

Yes and no. Of course they knew what the aircraft offered, but so did airlines in the case of the A340-600. A few even placed follow-up orders. I find it quite telling that Lufthansa chose to park 8 A340-600s - some less than 12 years old - and is replacing them with the A350, while their much older 747-400 fleet has to wait for the 777-9. The A340 is just so expensive to maintain that it outweighs any advantage in efficiency or age. I fully expect LH to look for a replacement for their 747-8 & A380 fleets by 2025. The heavy checks might force their early retirement.
Most freight operators will face the same problem.

The 747-400 fleet at LH isn't all that much older than the 340-600 fleet. The last 13 were built in the 1996-2002 span, while the 346 is 2003-2009, about 6 years on average.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos