Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 8
 
TC957
Posts: 3805
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 1:12 pm

Re: ​Internal tussle as Boeing weighs future of 747

Sun May 31, 2020 8:04 am

The situation with Volga-Dnepr is clearly one to watch. Wouldn't be surprised if Boeing gave QR Cargo a call offering these 4 frames if negotiations with VDA fail.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 24286
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: ​Internal tussle as Boeing weighs future of 747

Sun May 31, 2020 1:39 pm

moa999 wrote:
CX747 wrote:
767 re engine program is a no brainer in my opinion. Good customer base (USAF, FEDEX & UPS). Honestly, it has no real competition in the cargo market. It is perfectly sized for what it is called upon to do..

But the current environment is why it won't happen.
Al these 767s coming onto the conversion market mean there is zero chance of a freight company buying a neo anytime soon.

I disagree. FX did its own 757 freighter conversion line because there were no new aircraft available in that payload/range/size category (sorry A321 fans, the older CEOs did not meet the need). Now they are buying new 767s because they can and they don't want the hassle of older converted aircraft. Same is true for UPS. I expect both to order more. UPS would be glad to have NEO since they already operate 748F. The current environment has been a boom time for freight, it's made people even more likely to embrace e-commerce going forward.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
2175301
Posts: 1861
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: ​Internal tussle as Boeing weighs future of 747

Sun May 31, 2020 2:31 pm

The Flightglobal article indicates the the current 767F and current 777F engines will not meet the ICAO 2028 CO2 regulations.

That implies that the current 748F does; which makes sense as it uses a fairly new generation engine (a derivative of the 787 engine).

Admittedly, that adds a factor to Boeing for consideration of continuation of the 748F. While I could see that Boeing "might" be willing to invest some money into the 748F now. I still think that the industry needs to pony up at least 20 solid orders ("Letters of intent" if production extended) within the next 9 months-year.

Boeing's not going to do this on their own - or for only a a half dozen to a dozen frames.

Have a great day,
 
2175301
Posts: 1861
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: ​Internal tussle as Boeing weighs future of 747

Sun May 31, 2020 2:39 pm

As an alternative: I think that Boeing might be $ and market share ahead by coming up with a 777X-F version with a rear drop ramp (not a swing tail). The reasons for that is my understanding of the oversized cargo market is that it's more often long items and not big bulky items. A 777X-F with a drop tail could handle long items very well....; and it would be a lot cheaper to engineer and modify for a drop ramp than for a swing tail.

Have a great day,
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27160
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: ​Internal tussle as Boeing weighs future of 747

Sun May 31, 2020 4:10 pm

2175301 wrote:
As an alternative: I think that Boeing might be $ and market share ahead by coming up with a 777X-F version with a rear drop ramp (not a swing tail). The reasons for that is my understanding of the oversized cargo market is that it's more often long items and not big bulky items. A 777X-F with a drop tail could handle long items very well....; and it would be a lot cheaper to engineer and modify for a drop ramp than for a swing tail.


Such cargo is more often transported using the An-124 than the 747F since an An-124 does not need specialized equipment to load or unload from the nose or the tail and it can operate from rougher airfields where often these materials are most-conveniently delivered to.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 4204
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: ​Internal tussle as Boeing weighs future of 747

Sun May 31, 2020 4:46 pm

The Seattle Times article ends with spokes-persons from both sides doing 'corporate speak' (valued customer/wonderful planes sorts of things). It kind of sounds like this filing may be a ploy in the negotiations.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
CX747
Posts: 6248
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

Re: ​Internal tussle as Boeing weighs future of 747

Sun May 31, 2020 6:02 pm

2175301 wrote:
The Flightglobal article indicates the the current 767F and current 777F engines will not meet the ICAO 2028 CO2 regulations.

That implies that the current 748F does; which makes sense as it uses a fairly new generation engine (a derivative of the 787 engine).

Admittedly, that adds a factor to Boeing for consideration of continuation of the 748F. While I could see that Boeing "might" be willing to invest some money into the 748F now. I still think that the industry needs to pony up at least 20 solid orders ("Letters of intent" if production extended) within the next 9 months-year.

Boeing's not going to do this on their own - or for only a a half dozen to a dozen frames.

Have a great day,


Very well said.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 19976
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: ​Internal tussle as Boeing weighs future of 747

Sun May 31, 2020 6:25 pm

2175301 wrote:
As an alternative: I think that Boeing might be $ and market share ahead by coming up with a 777X-F version with a rear drop ramp (not a swing tail). The reasons for that is my understanding of the oversized cargo market is that it's more often long items and not big bulky items. A 777X-F with a drop tail could handle long items very well....; and it would be a lot cheaper to engineer and modify for a drop ramp than for a swing tail.

Have a great day,

I see a 778F with side doors. Probably the same doors as the current 777F.

Lightsaber
Flu+Covid19 is bad. Consider a flu vaccine, if not for yourself, to protect someone you care about.
 
2175301
Posts: 1861
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: ​Internal tussle as Boeing weighs future of 747

Sun May 31, 2020 6:54 pm

Stitch wrote:
2175301 wrote:
As an alternative: I think that Boeing might be $ and market share ahead by coming up with a 777X-F version with a rear drop ramp (not a swing tail). The reasons for that is my understanding of the oversized cargo market is that it's more often long items and not big bulky items. A 777X-F with a drop tail could handle long items very well....; and it would be a lot cheaper to engineer and modify for a drop ramp than for a swing tail.


Such cargo is more often transported using the An-124 than the 747F since an An-124 does not need specialized equipment to load or unload from the nose or the tail and it can operate from rougher airfields where often these materials are most-conveniently delivered to.


And how long is the An-124 going to last? I understand per Wiki that the last An-124 was produced in 2004.

The B748 will be produced until at least 2022 - and I do not doubt that Boeing will provide critical parts support for the next 40-50 years.

My thinking with the possibility of a rear drop ramp version of a 777X-F is that its the next generation of cargo transport for long items and a drop ramp could easily extend to the ground for simple loading. Now that would not by itself be a low cost modification. But, it would cinch a good chunk of the future oversized freight market.

Also, while it would be great if some new An-124 variant is produced someday... There is no guarantee - or even I feel a good possibility of that. The history of successful launches versus stated plans for such new versions from that part of the world is very low.

Have a great day,
 
2175301
Posts: 1861
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: ​Internal tussle as Boeing weighs future of 747

Sun May 31, 2020 7:00 pm

lightsaber wrote:
2175301 wrote:
As an alternative: I think that Boeing might be $ and market share ahead by coming up with a 777X-F version with a rear drop ramp (not a swing tail). The reasons for that is my understanding of the oversized cargo market is that it's more often long items and not big bulky items. A 777X-F with a drop tail could handle long items very well....; and it would be a lot cheaper to engineer and modify for a drop ramp than for a swing tail.

Have a great day,

I see a 778F with side doors. Probably the same doors as the current 777F.

Lightsaber


You are most likely correct. At least for the base version of the 778F.

However, Boeing might decide to also offer a drop ramp version (at higher cost) for strategic reasons and to gain more future cargo market-share. Should they offer a drop ramp version for long oversized cargo - it would certainly cinch most of the future oversized cargo market as the days of the An-124 and the sole An-225 are likely limited. Will either actually exist in 20 years or so?

Have a great day,
 
FGITD
Posts: 955
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:44 pm

Re: ​Internal tussle as Boeing weighs future of 747

Sun May 31, 2020 7:08 pm

I’m not buying that the exclusion of the 748F in that article implies that it exceeds the 2028 requirement. Otherwise why would any cargo operator (or really even pax) have bought a 777, when allegedly the 748 is so much more efficient.

It seems the post is gone, but there had been a linked document that placed the 777 at something like 2-6% exceeding, while the 748 was almost 12% over.

I think it's far more likely that it wasn't on the list because the author had little faith that it would still be in production by 2028.

A drop ramp 777x would be interesting to see, but I think the weight of the mechanisms required would make it prohibitively expensive. There's a reason the heavy lifters sit barely a few feet off the ground. It's a loooong way from the main deck level of 777x to ground level. From a balance perspective it would also be interesting to see how to counterweight the airplane while dragging a heavy load up that ramp. Definitely creative thinking though, which I think the industry needs more of
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27160
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: ​Internal tussle as Boeing weighs future of 747

Sun May 31, 2020 7:14 pm

2175301 wrote:
And how long is the An-124 going to last? I understand per Wiki that the last An-124 was produced in 2004.


It's a Soviet military frame - it probably has a usable service life measured in centuries. :rotfl:

Seriously, we need to remember that the 747 can only take items through the front door between 2.6 and 3.5m tall and 1.8 and 2.5m wide which is a fair bit more limited than the 4.4m by 6.4m of the An-124. The 747's floor loading is also likely significantly lower. So the 747 is very limited in what kinds of cargoes it can carry compared to the An-124 and a swing-tail or drop-ramp 777 would be even more so.

So the real answer to what happens when the An-124 is no longer available is cargo either travels by ship and land like it did before there was an An-124 or they build a replacement for the An-124 (which the Russian military is pursuing at the moment).
 
889091
Posts: 208
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2019 7:56 pm

Re: ​Internal tussle as Boeing weighs future of 747

Sun May 31, 2020 7:41 pm

2175301 wrote:
Stitch wrote:
2175301 wrote:
As an alternative: I think that Boeing might be $ and market share ahead by coming up with a 777X-F version with a rear drop ramp (not a swing tail). The reasons for that is my understanding of the oversized cargo market is that it's more often long items and not big bulky items. A 777X-F with a drop tail could handle long items very well....; and it would be a lot cheaper to engineer and modify for a drop ramp than for a swing tail.


Such cargo is more often transported using the An-124 than the 747F since an An-124 does not need specialized equipment to load or unload from the nose or the tail and it can operate from rougher airfields where often these materials are most-conveniently delivered to.


And how long is the An-124 going to last? I understand per Wiki that the last An-124 was produced in 2004.



On a side note, haven't they already built a complete 2nd airframe for the AN 225 awaiting engine/electronics integration then the project got canned and subsequently the airframe is stored somewhere in Ukraine? Or is this a a.net myth?
 
CX747
Posts: 6248
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

Re: ​Internal tussle as Boeing weighs future of 747

Sun May 31, 2020 7:47 pm

2175301 wrote:
As an alternative: I think that Boeing might be $ and market share ahead by coming up with a 777X-F version with a rear drop ramp (not a swing tail). The reasons for that is my understanding of the oversized cargo market is that it's more often long items and not big bulky items. A 777X-F with a drop tail could handle long items very well....; and it would be a lot cheaper to engineer and modify for a drop ramp than for a swing tail.

Have a great day,


I'm not sure if a drop ramp is the solution but I like where your head is at. The next generation of 777 freighter should have the ability or as close to the same ability of loading freight as the 747.

There was a symposium in the last year where the head of Cargolux, Atlas and I believe Volga-Dnepr spoke. All 3 of them discussed how crucial the nose loading ability of the 747 was to their operation. They were all very interested in how Boeing was going to meet that need in it's next generation freighter.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27160
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: ​Internal tussle as Boeing weighs future of 747

Sun May 31, 2020 7:49 pm

889091 wrote:
On a side note, haven't they already built a complete 2nd airframe for the AN 225 awaiting engine/electronics integration then the project got canned and subsequently the airframe is stored somewhere in Ukraine? Or is this a a.net myth?


Yes there is the fuselage and center wing box of a second An-225 at the Antanov factory. It was recently on an episode of "Mysteries of the Abandoned".
 
MixtureRich
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2019 8:36 pm

Re: ​Internal tussle as Boeing weighs future of 747

Sun May 31, 2020 8:41 pm

Biggest problem with the 777xF is the weight. The current 777F is at 351t MTW which will most probably be the same for the 777xF but the latter will be longer and probably around 10t heavier. The 777xF is then down to around 90t payload capacity which wont be enough for the general cargo operators.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2210
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: ​Internal tussle as Boeing weighs future of 747

Sun May 31, 2020 8:44 pm

It has been apparent for a decade that the 748 was at the end of its production. If the nose door is so vital, where were the orders 3 to 4 years ago. Cargolux, Atlas and Volga-Dnepr have not ordered a dozen frames together in the last years. If something is so vital, but the freighters never invest in it, how is Boeing going to finance all of this. If Triumph was getting 12 frames a year they would have continued production.

A 778F with only a shrink of the 779 is about the only choice in this decade. Possibly a decade out the 77X wing could be raised up along with a T-tail and a rear ramp be introduced to cover a future freighter and military transport. Maybe not tanks but able to move helos and other vehicles like the striker and no rough field capability. That would let the C-17 and the Herc do the last mile to the rough strips
 
User avatar
Phosphorus
Posts: 998
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 11:38 am

Re: ​Internal tussle as Boeing weighs future of 747

Sun May 31, 2020 8:48 pm

889091 wrote:
On a side note, haven't they already built a complete 2nd airframe for the AN 225 awaiting engine/electronics integration then the project got canned and subsequently the airframe is stored somewhere in Ukraine? Or is this a a.net myth?


There is a fuselage, with a centre wing box, sitting in Antonov factory in Kiev, waiting for its hour:
Image
Image

antonov.com and their facebook page are a treasure trove, if you look for this kind of insight.
AN4 A40 L4T TU3 TU5 IL6 ILW I93 F50 F70 100 146 ARJ AT7 DH4 L10 CRJ ERJ E90 E95 DC-9 MD-8X YK4 YK2 SF3 S20 319 320 321 332 333 343 346 722 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739 744 74M 757 767 777
Ceterum autem censeo, Moscovia esse delendam
 
tomcat
Posts: 565
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 4:14 am

Re: ​Internal tussle as Boeing weighs future of 747

Sun May 31, 2020 9:23 pm

CX747 wrote:
2175301 wrote:
As an alternative: I think that Boeing might be $ and market share ahead by coming up with a 777X-F version with a rear drop ramp (not a swing tail). The reasons for that is my understanding of the oversized cargo market is that it's more often long items and not big bulky items. A 777X-F with a drop tail could handle long items very well....; and it would be a lot cheaper to engineer and modify for a drop ramp than for a swing tail.

Have a great day,


I'm not sure if a drop ramp is the solution but I like where your head is at. The next generation of 777 freighter should have the ability or as close to the same ability of loading freight as the 747.

There was a symposium in the last year where the head of Cargolux, Atlas and I believe Volga-Dnepr spoke. All 3 of them discussed how crucial the nose loading ability of the 747 was to their operation. They were all very interested in how Boeing was going to meet that need in it's next generation freighter.


If there is such an interest for a nose loading capability, even for just a few dozens of aircraft, I really think that Airbus has a card to play with a 251t A330F-NEO which could borrow the lowered cockpit of the Beluga XL. With a smart design of the nose door, they could probably offer a nose loading cross section very close if not equivalent to the current 747F nose loading cross section. Off course, nothing would prevent Boeing to consider a similar optional design for the potential 778F if and when it will ever exist. The advantage of the lowered-nose A330F is that the basic airplane is cheaper than the 778F and its design adaptation is already half done. Its disadvantage vs a potential lowered-nose 778F is its smaller payload. In terms of range, a 251t A330F-NEO should be fine.
 
smartplane
Posts: 1506
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: ​Internal tussle as Boeing weighs future of 747

Sun May 31, 2020 9:31 pm

Doubt upside opportunities for the 748 are worth much Board and senior management time.

A far more relevant internal debate that should be going on, is between the 787 and 777 teams. We can offer a 2nd wing option with X-style fold, an 11 stretch (A350 beater) and 7 shrink for less money than the X, improving 787 family unit profitability to levels the X will never achieve.

Current test flying is probably as much about making it harder to cancel the X as getting it certified. In comparison MAX RTS and 10 activity seems invisible.
 
gabep
Posts: 109
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2003 6:07 am

Re: ​Internal tussle as Boeing weighs future of 747

Sun May 31, 2020 9:57 pm

scbriml wrote:
SteelChair wrote:
Its been postulated in the past, but not on this thread yet. USAF orders.

With the retirement of all the C5A's, the USAF has a much less capable heavy lift capability. We have a unique President that is sensitive to products built in the USA. It may not be likely, but it is not impossible that USAF could come forward with an order of 50 "commercial off the shelf" 747-8F's. The factors that make the C-5's so unreliable are rarely used anyway.


USAF still has 44 active C-5Ms and 220 C-17s.


An amount the USAF has repeatedly indicated is inadequate for current and future operational tempos. Hence the heavy reliance on 5Y, K4, KD, N8 and all the other Civil Reserve Air Fleet airlines. This of course is by no means an indicator of USAF interest in the 748F program, but does anecdotally support the thesis.

Gabep
 
CX747
Posts: 6248
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

Re: ​Internal tussle as Boeing weighs future of 747

Sun May 31, 2020 10:03 pm

JayinKitsap wrote:
It has been apparent for a decade that the 748 was at the end of its production. If the nose door is so vital, where were the orders 3 to 4 years ago. Cargolux, Atlas and Volga-Dnepr have not ordered a dozen frames together in the last years. If something is so vital, but the freighters never invest in it, how is Boeing going to finance all of this. If Triumph was getting 12 frames a year they would have continued production.

A 778F with only a shrink of the 779 is about the only choice in this decade. Possibly a decade out the 77X wing could be raised up along with a T-tail and a rear ramp be introduced to cover a future freighter and military transport. Maybe not tanks but able to move helos and other vehicles like the striker and no rough field capability. That would let the C-17 and the Herc do the last mile to the rough strips


All those operators fly the 744 and 748. Just because something is important to your operation doesn't mean you are going to go buy new jets to keep it in production. All three were very interested in what Boeing had to offer in that market moving forward. A discussion focused on what comes after the 747 that can do what it does?
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27160
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: ​Internal tussle as Boeing weighs future of 747

Sun May 31, 2020 10:09 pm

Ironic that when the C-17 was in production, the USAF was upset that Congress kept shoving them down their throats because parts for the frames were built in so many Districts.

And yet only a handful of years after the production line is retired and dismantled, suddenly they want a few dozen more.

:crazy:
 
CX747
Posts: 6248
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

Re: ​Internal tussle as Boeing weighs future of 747

Sun May 31, 2020 10:44 pm

Stitch wrote:
Ironic that when the C-17 was in production, the USAF was upset that Congress kept shoving them down their throats because parts for the frames were built in so many Districts.

And yet only a handful of years after the production line is retired and dismantled, suddenly they want a few dozen more.

:crazy:


Crazy indeed. Similar thing in the USN. F-14 gets retired, the Super Hornet can do everything. Now we are throwing billions at trying to get the Tomcat replacement to actually do what it's predecessor did!!!!
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
blooc350
Posts: 167
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: ​Internal tussle as Boeing weighs future of 747

Sun May 31, 2020 10:47 pm

Get rid of it. Its all about the A350,787 and soon 777-9. Even the A380 is dying a slow death lol
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 13113
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: ​Internal tussle as Boeing weighs future of 747

Mon Jun 01, 2020 1:45 am

tomcat wrote:
Aesma wrote:
tomcat wrote:

If there is some demand for a freighter with nose loading capacity then Airbus can offer an adapted A330. The design for a lowered cockpit is already in production thanks to the Beluga XL. The only part missing is the nose door fitting the baseline fuselage diameter.


Why complicate things by opening the nose when you can open the back ? Like the Boeing Dreamlifter.

The 747 has the upper deck there so that the nose can be opened, but if you start from a more conventional frame, opening the back seems much easier.

Now do you even need to open it like the Dreamlifter, I'm not sure, if you make a side door big enough, that should be good enough for most shipments.


What is so complicated when the design (of a lowered cockpit) already exists and is already in production with the Beluga XL? All Airbus would need to do is to design a nose door conforming to the regular fuselage diameter. Put this on a 251t A330NEO and you get a descent proposal with an aircraft that is still in production.

In any case, I don't believe that a dreamlifter-like design is a good solution. It requires ground support equipment to support the back when opened and IIRC its operation has some wind speed restriction.


The dreamlifter is all ballooned up so that has to play a role, and it's not a refined solution.

I'm not sure the Beluga cockpit is really certified/certifiable for regular ops. There has to be a bad drag penalty, too.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
CX747
Posts: 6248
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

Re: ​Internal tussle as Boeing weighs future of 747

Mon Jun 01, 2020 3:27 am

Aesma wrote:
tomcat wrote:
Aesma wrote:

Why complicate things by opening the nose when you can open the back ? Like the Boeing Dreamlifter.

The 747 has the upper deck there so that the nose can be opened, but if you start from a more conventional frame, opening the back seems much easier.

Now do you even need to open it like the Dreamlifter, I'm not sure, if you make a side door big enough, that should be good enough for most shipments.


What is so complicated when the design (of a lowered cockpit) already exists and is already in production with the Beluga XL? All Airbus would need to do is to design a nose door conforming to the regular fuselage diameter. Put this on a 251t A330NEO and you get a descent proposal with an aircraft that is still in production.

In any case, I don't believe that a dreamlifter-like design is a good solution. It requires ground support equipment to support the back when opened and IIRC its operation has some wind speed restriction.


The dreamlifter is all ballooned up so that has to play a role, and it's not a refined solution.

I'm not sure the Beluga cockpit is really certified/certifiable for regular ops. There has to be a bad drag penalty, too.


I don't have the specifics but I'm pretty sure the Beluga and it's A330 replacement are not certified for "normal" cargo ops. More of a certified for doing flights on behalf of the manufacturer.

I would assume the Dreamlifter is under the same restriction. I did see that the Dreamlifter flew some COVID-19 missions but that was "donated" usage by Boeing.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
889091
Posts: 208
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2019 7:56 pm

Re: ​Internal tussle as Boeing weighs future of 747

Mon Jun 01, 2020 8:49 am

lightsaber wrote:
Improvements to aircraft aren't prohibited by the new regulations as far as I can tell. Thus 777-300ERSF conversions, as well as other freighter conversions, will be expected post 2028.

Do we really know the 747-8F isn't compliant?



lightsaber, does that also include the 744BCF/BDSF conversions? When airlines started retiring the iconic 744, many on this site were sad to see it go, but they also commented that it will be flying for the next 30+ years as a box hauler. This ICAO requirement seems to have thrown a spanner into the works, no? The cargo market is like a yoyo - pre Covid-19, is was in a slump. Post Covid19, it's going gangbusters.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5631
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

Re: ​Internal tussle as Boeing weighs future of 747

Mon Jun 01, 2020 12:49 pm

JayinKitsap wrote:
It has been apparent for a decade that the 748 was at the end of its production. If the nose door is so vital, where were the orders 3 to 4 years ago. Cargolux, Atlas and Volga-Dnepr have not ordered a dozen frames together in the last years. If something is so vital, but the freighters never invest in it, how is Boeing going to finance all of this. If Triumph was getting 12 frames a year they would have continued production.

The nose loading capability may be vital to their operations; that does not automatically mean that they have the money to order a dozen new ones per year. Much as they may want Boeing to continue them, Boeing has to have enough demand to make it profitable. There are many machines that have been absolutely vital to certain people that have gone out of production because there was not sufficient demand or production was ceased for other reasons. That’s life. And, with insufficient demand to continue production of an existing airframe with all development already done, how would Boeing justify spending billions to add that unique capability to another airframe? Unless there is a military order I don’t see it happening.
Last edited by SEPilot on Mon Jun 01, 2020 12:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
LightningZ71
Posts: 558
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2016 10:59 pm

Re: ​Internal tussle as Boeing weighs future of 747

Mon Jun 01, 2020 12:49 pm

A tail ramp on the 777 would require an almost complete tear up and redo of the rear half of the fuselage aft of the wing box. If you're going to be doing all that, its almost more cost effective to do a plane specifically for the task. Also, considering that the mass of the ramp and mechanism would be very high, the tail section would need to be shortened to offset the weight/balance issues that would present. As a result, you'd loose available cargo volume, making it less efficient for the 90+% of other jobs that it would need to do to be profitable.

I don't think you'll ever see a 777 carrying out sized cargo like a 747F can with that swing nose. The only way that that will be possible is if a conversion company works with Boeing to convert new built 777F aircraft for the task in a secondary facility and go through a simply massive amount of red tape to get it certified. For a possible market of less than 50, and likely less than 30 frames, I don't even know how you'll ever get those books to balance.

Frankly, I believe that we are more likely to see a program that puts the GenX engines on low mileage 744F frames than any rework of the 777. The airframe doesn't have to undergo a drastic change for the modification, though I'm sure that the wings will need some work given the difference that the engines present. I just have to believe that its going to be a far lower investment, that may even wind up being engine manufacturer supported, that will help extend the life of those birds. I also believe that this has a higher chance of happening because Boeing is currently working on the possibility of performing essentially the same conversion to the 767s for a future offering, and it used largely the same engines itself.

Again, this is a very VERY unlikely scenario, but I think it's more possible than a nose door/tail ramp 777.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 13113
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: ​Internal tussle as Boeing weighs future of 747

Mon Jun 01, 2020 2:53 pm

Why a ramp ? The 747 doesn't have a ramp, you need to get stuff up like normal through the nose. A ramp is what the military would ask for.

As for air cargo booming at the moment, it's due to a disruption in the global supply chain. Some people in power seem to think disrupting it more is a good idea, and if enough US citizens are convinced, it could happen. Then there will be much less cargo, be it by air or ship.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
Ronaldo747
Posts: 390
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 4:58 pm

Re: ​Internal tussle as Boeing weighs future of 747

Mon Jun 01, 2020 8:37 pm

- A tail swing 778F would add even more some weight reducing the payload further and add maintenance costs and downtimes. Not viable.
- No word on the 787F. Why? With the orders for pax frames already winding down (probably for years to come), Boeing could going forward with the 787F. IIRC a possible freighter version is already incorporated during development. Although FDX and UPS might be not happy with the wingspan.
 
User avatar
DrPaul
Posts: 130
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 7:21 pm

Re: ​Internal tussle as Boeing weighs future of 747

Mon Jun 01, 2020 9:15 pm

Have there been any ideas about producing a freighter version of the Boeing 777-9? Might that not be a suitable replacement for the 747-8F?
 
SteelChair
Posts: 1433
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

Re: ​Internal tussle as Boeing weighs future of 747

Mon Jun 01, 2020 9:22 pm

CX747 wrote:
Stitch wrote:
Ironic that when the C-17 was in production, the USAF was upset that Congress kept shoving them down their throats because parts for the frames were built in so many Districts.

And yet only a handful of years after the production line is retired and dismantled, suddenly they want a few dozen more.

:crazy:


Crazy indeed. Similar thing in the USN. F-14 gets retired, the Super Hornet can do everything. Now we are throwing billions at trying to get the Tomcat replacement to actually do what it's predecessor did!!!!


Like sitting broken on the deck?

Before we get back on topic, let's agree that the F14 was unreliable, complex and expensive, dangerous, and lacked modern avionics. And much of its job was taken over by the AEGIS equipped destroyers and cruisers
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27160
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: ​Internal tussle as Boeing weighs future of 747

Mon Jun 01, 2020 9:34 pm

DrPaul wrote:
Have there been any ideas about producing a freighter version of the Boeing 777-9? Might that not be a suitable replacement for the 747-8F?


Depending on how good the 777-9 ends up being, it might or might not be suitable for a General Cargo freighter.
 
744SPX
Posts: 240
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:20 pm

Re: ​Internal tussle as Boeing weighs future of 747

Mon Jun 01, 2020 10:04 pm

Stitch wrote:
DrPaul wrote:
Have there been any ideas about producing a freighter version of the Boeing 777-9? Might that not be a suitable replacement for the 747-8F?


Depending on how good the 777-9 ends up being, it might or might not be suitable for a General Cargo freighter.


Payload would likely be even lower than the 777F with all that extra structural weight. No even close to a 748 replacement. 778 makes the most sense, but it will never carry the payload of the 748.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27160
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: ​Internal tussle as Boeing weighs future of 747

Mon Jun 01, 2020 11:16 pm

744SPX wrote:
Payload would likely be even lower than the 777F with all that extra structural weight. No even close to a 748 replacement. 778 makes the most sense, but it will never carry the payload of the 748.


It doesn't necessarily have to.

The 777F chased the 744F out of the market because it get close enough in payload volume and weight with so much better economics. Boeing arguably had no choice but to launch the 747-8F to keep that market alive.

Boeing looks like they have pulled a fair bit of weight out of the 777X since launch in 2013 so that will improve the MZFW for the -8 and -9, which is what matters to a freighter.
 
User avatar
ntehrani
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed May 13, 2020 12:56 am

Re: ​Internal tussle as Boeing weighs future of 747

Tue Jun 02, 2020 12:31 am

Hi all! I just saw this in the news, but I can't read past the paywall:

"Sources: Boeing wins 747 freighter deal, in talks to sell more jumbos"

https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/new ... demic.html
 
User avatar
ADent
Posts: 1115
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 12:11 pm

Re: ​Internal tussle as Boeing weighs future of 747

Tue Jun 02, 2020 1:17 am

In reference to the linked article it looks like 1 from the Volga-Dnepr fiasco and 4 to 7 ”additional jumbo cargo airplanes to a buyer believed to be UPS Inc.” but I couldn’t read the whole thing.
 
CX747
Posts: 6248
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

Re: ​Internal tussle as Boeing weighs future of 747

Tue Jun 02, 2020 2:55 am

ntehrani wrote:
Hi all! I just saw this in the news, but I can't read past the paywall:

"Sources: Boeing wins 747 freighter deal, in talks to sell more jumbos"

https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/new ... demic.html


Didn't take long for other buyers to scoop up the 747-8F! UPS LOVES THAT THING.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
ewt340
Posts: 1271
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: ​Internal tussle as Boeing weighs future of 747

Tue Jun 02, 2020 3:12 am

They just need to discontinue B747 and focus more on optimizing B777F.

B777F already have more range compared to B747-8F. While its smaller, it could also carry the same weight per m3 as B747-8F.

I know there's an arguments about the Nose door. But, would it be better for Boeing to push for B777F instead of keeping B747 alive? It's not like They have much backlog left....
 
CX747
Posts: 6248
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

Re: ​Internal tussle as Boeing weighs future of 747

Tue Jun 02, 2020 3:25 am

Stitch wrote:
744SPX wrote:
Payload would likely be even lower than the 777F with all that extra structural weight. No even close to a 748 replacement. 778 makes the most sense, but it will never carry the payload of the 748.


It doesn't necessarily have to.

The 777F chased the 744F out of the market because it get close enough in payload volume and weight with so much better economics. Boeing arguably had no choice but to launch the 747-8F to keep that market alive.

Boeing looks like they have pulled a fair bit of weight out of the 777X since launch in 2013 so that will improve the MZFW for the -8 and -9, which is what matters to a freighter.


Two different birds, the 747 and 777. 777F didn't chase the 747-400F out of the market. It was just time to update the 747. They do similar jobs but underneath very differently. Hey, you need something that does 80-85% of what the 747 does? Then the 777F might be for you. You want more than what the 747-400F offered? Well let me show you the 747-8F. Long range, lighter weight? 777F. Heavy cargo, different sizes/shapes 747-8F.

When you talk to the guys actually flying the 747F or the 777F they understand that they are similar but different. Not wrong or right. You choose the right tool for the job. The market for the 777F is larger than the 747F. Doesn't mean one is "better", just designed to operate differently. It doesn't have to be a competition, just what tool do you need? In other terms, Ford sells F-150s and F-250s. They sell more F-150s, does that make it better than a -250?

FEDEX was never a big 747 operator, they inherited some and dumped them as soon as possible. They love the 777F. UPS on the other hand runs 747s. Had an opportunity to switch to the 777F. They went with the 747-8F and then doubled down. Neither is wrong, they just want a different tool, with different strengths. They are also two very different airlines. One is a parcel service, that hauls cargo. The other is a cargo airline that hauls some parcels.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
CX747
Posts: 6248
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

Re: ​Internal tussle as Boeing weighs future of 747

Tue Jun 02, 2020 3:45 am

ADent wrote:
In reference to the linked article it looks like 1 from the Volga-Dnepr fiasco and 4 to 7 ”additional jumbo cargo airplanes to a buyer believed to be UPS Inc.” but I couldn’t read the whole thing.


You are correct. 1 from Volga-Dnepr and 4 to 7 additional. IF Volga is hot to trot, use the payments made on the current 747 in question and let Volga "jump" the line if you will for the next 747-8F to come down the line. Make UPS whole by providing a 747-400F in the delay.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27160
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: ​Internal tussle as Boeing weighs future of 747

Tue Jun 02, 2020 3:57 am

ntehrani wrote:
Hi all! I just saw this in the news, but I can't read past the paywall: "Sources: Boeing wins 747 freighter deal, in talks to sell more jumbos"


According to the article, Boeing has re-sold L/N 1558 (VQ-BIO - NTU by Volga-Dnepr and currently painted in AirBridgeCargo colors) to an unidentified customer. The frame will be reconfigured and customized for the new customer.

That UPS is rumored to be taking 4 to 7 frames makes me believe they are probably the customer for L/N 1558 and they have agreed to take the other three Volga-Dnepr NTUs that have yet to enter production. If this is true, then it would mean Boeing did source the ship-sets for those frames from Triumph before they stopped production.

So that covers four frames. Where could they get the other three? Well Boeing Capital Corporation is currently leasing three 747-8F to Silkway West, but Silkway looks like they're doing okay at the moment so I am guessing they are not at risk of returning them to BCC.

So did Boeing order even more ship-sets from Triumph in the hope they could sell to UPS? Or did UPS have unannounced options from their 2018 order that they agreed they would convert to order so Boeing was confident on ordering additional parts knowing they would not end up "white tails".
 
User avatar
Momo1435
Posts: 1164
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 2:33 pm

Re: ​Internal tussle as Boeing weighs future of 747

Tue Jun 02, 2020 6:13 am

Boeing could always have considered some not yet firmed up options (by UPS or even ABC) with their last Triumph ship-set orders. As Boeing did not have any big troubles with selling their previous white tail 747-8Fs they built it would also not be too much of a financial risk if those options would not be taken up. They would find another customer for these frames anyway.

I would say that the theory of the program shutdown will only be busted if we see a significant number of new orders. The whole deal with ABC shows that Boeing might not be able to reschedule production slots anymore to suit both ABC and (most likely) UPS. Which could be seen that the absolute final slots are now being sold to the last customer(s).
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2210
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: ​Internal tussle as Boeing weighs future of 747

Tue Jun 02, 2020 7:59 am

So what warehouse does Triumph store these last frames, anyone able to sneak inside and count shipsets. It all seems to be Top Secret, there are certain to be further plot twists before the curtain falls.

Raiders of the Lost Ark (10/10) Movie CLIP - Top Secret (1981) HD youtube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRP0MBNoieY
 
Noshow
Posts: 1588
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: ​Internal tussle as Boeing weighs future of 747

Tue Jun 02, 2020 9:08 am

Wouldn't say Spirit be able to build any fuselage parts needed for any upcoming ordered 747? Is this a bottleneck or a showstopper?
 
User avatar
Momo1435
Posts: 1164
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 2:33 pm

Re: ​Internal tussle as Boeing weighs future of 747

Tue Jun 02, 2020 9:23 am

Boeing as the owner of the design for these parts could find another supplier or take it in house. But that would mean another investment in a product with a very low production rate.

The cheapest solution in this scenario is when Triumph sells the tooling to Boeing or directly to a new supplier. But this will only be done when there's certainty of a future for the 747, which is not a given at this moment. If a whole new production line is needed with new tooling it will most likely be too expensive.
 
Noshow
Posts: 1588
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: ​Internal tussle as Boeing weighs future of 747

Tue Jun 02, 2020 10:05 am

Didn't triumph sell the 747-tooling and the former factory already?
 
User avatar
Phosphorus
Posts: 998
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 11:38 am

Re: ​Internal tussle as Boeing weighs future of 747

Tue Jun 02, 2020 11:58 am

Noshow wrote:
Didn't triumph sell the 747-tooling and the former factory already?

The auctioning off began last year:
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-release ... 50290.html

As you can see from auctioneer's site, a lot of stuff was left unsold after the initial auction:
https://www.aucto.com/auction/triumph-a ... lity/10515

In April, there was "Take 3":
https://www.aucto.com/auction/triumph-a ... ay-1/10591
Still, some stuff unsold.

In June, there is ongoing "Take 5". Available here:
https://www.aucto.com/seller/raar-group-usa-inc/1532

So, yes, it's being sold off, piecemeal. One might still get part of the action!
AN4 A40 L4T TU3 TU5 IL6 ILW I93 F50 F70 100 146 ARJ AT7 DH4 L10 CRJ ERJ E90 E95 DC-9 MD-8X YK4 YK2 SF3 S20 319 320 321 332 333 343 346 722 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739 744 74M 757 767 777
Ceterum autem censeo, Moscovia esse delendam
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 8

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AECM, aireuropef100, Baidu [Spider], concordeforever, CranfordBoy, cy319, digitalcloud, Dublinspotter, GSP psgr, LaunchDetected, njeinaz, Opus99, panamair, timpdx and 342 guests

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