Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Lumberton
Topic Author
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

Randy Says: 748 To Have Lowest Casm Period

Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:55 am

I noted this quote on another thread, but I feel it warrants its own discussion topic:

Quote:
One of the great things about the 747-8 Intercontinental is that with its improved fuel consumption and other efficiencies it will have the lowest seat-mile cost of any passenger airplane.

This is an incredibly audacious statement to make! They have to feel pretty confident to have their number one P.R. guy come out and say this. It will be interesting to see how Mr. Leahy and company try to rebut this in the future.

[Edited 2005-11-16 00:56:21]

[Edited 2005-11-16 00:58:39]
 
FriendlySkies
Posts: 3540
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 3:57 pm

RE: Randy Says: 748 To Have Lowest Casm Period

Wed Nov 16, 2005 9:00 am

Even lower than the 787? Well, I suppose given a certain config every aircraft is the most efficient. Granted, the 748 will be efficient, probably much more than the A380 at a similar config.
 
Rj111
Posts: 3007
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:02 am

RE: Randy Says: 748 To Have Lowest Casm Period

Wed Nov 16, 2005 9:07 am

I dunno about much more than the A388. But it may be more efficient, as the A388 was designed for a stretch, and is therefore rather heavy.

I think Airbus was betting on Boeing not developing the 748, and in hindsight may have redesigned the A388 to be lighter and possibly smaller, but with less stretching potential. The A389 - should it come to fruition - will be more efficient though.

However we are yet to see either operate in regular passenger service and history has shown us, until we see both, it's anyone's guess.
 
grantcv
Posts: 410
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 1:28 pm

RE: Randy Says: 748 To Have Lowest Casm Period

Wed Nov 16, 2005 9:20 am

Well, aren't there two factors that are coming into play here:

- In general terms, larger aircraft are more efficient than smaller ones on a per seat basis. That is why the 747 beats the 787.

- By design, aircraft usually see better economics when they are stretched, but not when they are shrunk. That is why the 747SP never really succeeded. And that is why the 747-8 at the upper limits of its stretch potential beats the larger A380 which is at the lower limits of its stretch potential.
 
Lumberton
Topic Author
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Randy Says: 748 To Have Lowest Casm Period

Wed Nov 16, 2005 9:22 am

Quoting Grantcv (Reply 3):
And that is why the 747-8 at the upper limits of its stretch potential beats the larger A380 which is at the lower limits of its stretch potential.

If so, will Airbus counter shortly with the A389?
 
boeingbus
Posts: 1545
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 12:37 am

RE: Randy Says: 748 To Have Lowest Casm Period

Wed Nov 16, 2005 9:26 am

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 2):
The A389 - should it come to fruition - will be more efficient though.

Not sure that this will ever happen as a total redesign of the wing will be needed because of the recent ICAO report on wake turbulence data. This is very bad news for Airbus even worse than the lauch fo the 748. I hoe Airbus can work this out.

As far as Randy's comments.. well, this is very ambitious. But maybe they are going to do more than we expect. I can't wait for more data on the 748.

Cheers.

Ric
 
jm017
Posts: 781
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2002 6:47 pm

RE: Randy Says: 748 To Have Lowest Casm Period

Wed Nov 16, 2005 12:06 pm

Sorry to ask a basic question, but is the 747-800 the same as the 747advanced? If not, what are the differences?

Thanks.
 
FriendlySkies
Posts: 3540
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 3:57 pm

RE: Randy Says: 748 To Have Lowest Casm Period

Wed Nov 16, 2005 12:19 pm

The 747-8 is the 747Adv. No differences, Boeing just gave it a proper name with the launch.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 22906
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Randy Says: 748 To Have Lowest Casm Period

Wed Nov 16, 2005 12:44 pm

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 2):
I dunno about much more than the A388. But it may be more efficient, as the A388 was designed for a stretch, and is therefore rather heavy.

I agree. The A388 is carrying around a lot of weight it doesn't need.

I do think Randy's comment is a bit audacious.

Let's look at the numbers:
1. Compared to 788 or 789, the 748 is going to have quite a few more passengers.
2. So much of the 747 development cost is already paid off. (Hence, why they're keeping to the 950,000lbm MTOW.)
3. More pax than the 744, less fuel.  Smile


Quoting Lumberton (Reply 4):

If so, will Airbus counter shortly with the A389?

In my opinion, this is the plane the A380 was meant to be.

Also, what range is Randy quoting the CASM for? If its 8,000nm, I would say "no duh!" But for 5,000nm, I would think the A388 would be back in the game... But then again, after over 1,200 made, the 747 airframe is well "learned out" and Boeing is going to ship them cheap! Recall that the first 100 airframes cost as much to make as the next 300!!! (Standard manufacturing rule of thumb.)

Poor Boeing engineers... there still isn't a Catia model of the 747!  duck  Sorry, but once you've worked with solid models, you *never* want to go back. (Ok, I bet for the 748 that's corrected and the parts are put into Catia.)

Lightsaber
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16357
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Randy Says: 748 To Have Lowest Casm Period

Wed Nov 16, 2005 12:48 pm

When is the planned entry into service for the 747-800 2012 ?
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 14534
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: Randy Says: 748 To Have Lowest Casm Period

Wed Nov 16, 2005 12:57 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 9):
When is the planned entry into service for the 747-800 2012 ?

First deliveries in 2009.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15181
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Randy Says: 748 To Have Lowest Casm Period

Wed Nov 16, 2005 12:59 pm

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 2):
I think Airbus was betting on Boeing not developing the 748, and in hindsight may have redesigned the A388 to be lighter and possibly smaller, but with less stretching potential. The A389 - should it come to fruition - will be more efficient though.

This is an interesting hind sight comment.

Should Airbus have offered a 500 and 580 seat aircraft rather than a 550 and 650 seat design, with a smaller wing? The 580 seat version would be the A389 "stretch" of the frame increasing efficiency over the current A388 "base" size plane. Then a 500 seat model would also be more efficient or equally efficient as a the 748.

Rather than 3-4-3 on the main deck and 2-4-2 on the upper deck, a "slimmer" A380 could have been 3-3-3 on the main and 2-3-2 on the upper in Y, both with wider cabins than a respective 777 or 767. It also allows for a generous 2-2-2 J on the main and 2-1-2 J on the upper deck, 1-1-1 angle J suites on the upper or 1-2-1 on the lower, 1-2-1 first suites on the lower or 1-x-1 first suites on the upper, etc. Functionally it's different but not any better or worse. You can also have 2-4-2 Y+ on the main, 2-2-2 Y+ on the upper, 2-3-2 domestic F/J on the main, 2-2-2 domestic F/J on the upper, etc.

That's a seat reduction of 8.9% per row in Y (too hard to effectively calculate on the other options), but ultimately it translates to about 485 seats at the current A388 length, and 575 seats at the 389 proposed length. A bit of interior tweaking and/or 3 foot boost in the 388 interior length brings that to 500 and 580, and arguably, it has more comfortable seating than the current layout for Y pax. And in 2 class or all Y configs for shuttle service, it still packs them in up to 750 pax or more if you go 3-4-3 main deck Y like EK on the 777.

That's a thinner tube of far less weight, but with similar cargo abilities to the 747F on the main deck (see 777F freighter), and similar cargo abilities to the 767F on the upper deck, while still having room for the same palletized cargo in the lower hold. The effective freight abilities might not be much different than now, and for Fedex or UPS, the 389 would basically take the same cargo with a lighter OEW.

And for pax versions taking cargo below, the cargo/pax ratio increases this way, making any route more profitable (one reason B claims the 748 is a better design economically, right or wrong).

At 500 and 580, you'd have firm orders for both frames right now, the 500 seat model wouldn't be so much of a "it's a little too big for us" problem that the current base 550 model is now, etc. EK would have ordered both right off the bat, for example, and maybe in larger numbers.

Anyway, woulda, should coulda. Airbus wanted to have a main deck WIDER than the 747 as well as a full length upper deck, and that's what they built and that gave them 550 seats, even if it wasn't necessarily the most efficient solution for the "base" frame.

The A380 will be a success, but the question of "did we make it too wide and thus heavy just to be the widest" might haunt some engineers for a while.
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Randy Says: 748 To Have Lowest Casm Period

Wed Nov 16, 2005 1:02 pm

First delivery third-quarter 2009, according to Boeing.

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2005/q4/nr_051114h.html
 
Wiggidy
Posts: 110
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 11:06 am

RE: Randy Says: 748 To Have Lowest Casm Period

Wed Nov 16, 2005 1:07 pm

Quoting BoeingBus (Reply 5):
Not sure that this will ever happen as a total redesign of the wing will be needed because of the recent ICAO report on wake turbulence data

Ya, keep telling yourself that. The A389 will happen, its not really a question. It has been on the table since day one, it is the plane that the A380 is meant to be, period. And with the incredible interest airlines have voiced, I think it will happen as soon as possible. The only question I have is why didnt A start with the A389? Im sure someone knows.
-Wes
 
CanadianNorth
Posts: 3287
Joined: Sat Aug 24, 2002 11:41 am

RE: Randy Says: 748 To Have Lowest Casm Period

Wed Nov 16, 2005 1:12 pm

Am I the only one whos first thought when I saw 748 blah blah blah was the Hawker-Siddely HS748? (although it only took about however long it took to read the rest of the title to clue in that it meant 747-800)


CanadianNorth
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27676
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Randy Says: 748 To Have Lowest Casm Period

Wed Nov 16, 2005 1:17 pm

Well the 748I may indeed have a lower CASM then the A388, but if you can distribute you passenger loads across, say three A388s instead of four 748Is, then I imagine the A388 comes out ahead in terms of "total cost of ownership".

And even 1:1, if you need to carry more then ~400 people (assuming a "real" config and not the defaults B and A use to reach their 450/555 numbers), then it doesn't matter if the A388 is not quite as efficient, since a 748I can't get the job done, anyway.
 
jm017
Posts: 781
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2002 6:47 pm

RE: Randy Says: 748 To Have Lowest Casm Period

Wed Nov 16, 2005 2:13 pm

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 7):
The 747-8 is the 747Adv. No differences, Boeing just gave it a proper name with the launch.

Thanks.
 
QFA001
Posts: 651
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 6:47 am

RE: Randy Says: 748 To Have Lowest Casm Period

Wed Nov 16, 2005 3:13 pm

Anyone interested in applying some old rule-of-thumb quick analyses?

Airbus says that the A380 (555 seats) can beat the B747-400 (416) on seat-mile costs by 15%. Boeing says that the B747-8 can beat the -400 fuel burn by -14%. (Based on what I know about the GEnx and CF6-80, this seems to be an accurate figure.)

So?

First Rule of Thumb
In today's prices, fuel is conservatively 30% of operating cost. So, just on fuel-burn alone, the B747-8 should have -4.2% seat-mile costs vs B747-400. On fuel alone, that closes Airbus' "15% gap" (which I'm here to tell you, doesn't exist) to 10.8%.

Second Rule of Thumb
For each 2% of extra passengers carried by a stretch, the seat-mile costs are reduced by 1%. The B747-8 (450) has 8.2% more seats than a -400. Corrected to taking out the fuel component that we used in above, the -8 has another -2.9% improvement on the -400.

That closes Airbus' "15% gap" to 7.9%. All in two minutes.

Thus, even if we believe Airbus' "15% gap" (which we shouldn't, just ask the airlines that have bought it), we should see that the A380 has a big problem. Or, should I say, a smaller problem.  Wink Even a 7.9% gap just isn't enough.

Using our second rule again, if Airbus stretches the A380 20%, then they'll reduce seat-mile costs by 10%. That will put the gap back between the A380 and B747. (I'd like to say that they could leverage the improved efficiency of A350/B787 engines, but the actual A380 engines aren't that short of the A350/B787 engines.)

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 2):
However we are yet to see either operate in regular passenger service and history has shown us, until we see both, it's anyone's guess.

No disrespect to you, RJ, but I loathe when this comes up. The airplanes may not be in service, but airlines are still deciding what to buy off the drawing board. So, even if the figures change in future, right now what is on paper is reality.

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 4):
If so, will Airbus counter shortly with the A389?

Good question!

Ideally, a stretch would give Airbus the seat-mile costs they need to achieve. OTOH, a 650-seat airplane is in a small niche. Besides, we are also comparing A380 to a re-engined 1960s design. If we compared A380-900 to, say, a second B787 stretch, the -10X, then even a -900 would be in trouble in terms of lowest-offerable seat-mile costs.

IMHO, what has happened today is that the A380 is cornered. The -800 no longer carries weight in seat-mile terms, and the -800F is even worse off. Launching a -900 will only garner incremental sales right now (but sure, many more perhaps in the latter half of next decade presuming that Boeing does nothing with its Y3 study). Today, the A380 was relegated to only being of interest in terms of capacity.

That is, noone is going to buy it for seat-mile cost, now. Now, it's all about revenue.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 11):
Should Airbus have offered a 500 and 580 seat aircraft rather than a 550 and 650 seat design, with a smaller wing?

That was the original A3XX. Airbus had to grow the airplane to get to their "15% gap" because of the square-cube law and the inefficient-sized double-deck design. If they could have, I think Airbus would have started at 500-seats. (D'uh, you might think, considering that I just pointed out that the A3XX started life at 500 seats.)

Quoting Wiggidy (Reply 13):
Ya, keep telling yourself that. The A389 will happen, its not really a question. It has been on the table since day one, it is the plane that the A380 is meant to be, period. And with the incredible interest airlines have voiced, I think it will happen as soon as possible. The only question I have is why didnt A start with the A389? Im sure someone knows.

The A330-400X was on the table from day one. The A340-400X. The "B747 Stretch". The B757-100X. The B767-100X. The B777-100X. The twin-engine versions of the DC-10 and L-1011.

Just because an OEM says something is on the table doesn't mean that it is on the table. The B747 was designed to be stretched from the outset, too. Yet, it will take 39 years (if we disclude the EUD) for that to occur. The B757-300 took 18 years, too.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 15):
Well the 748I may indeed have a lower CASM then the A388, but if you can distribute you passenger loads across, say three A388s instead of four 748Is, then I imagine the A388 comes out ahead in terms of "total cost of ownership".

You said CASM, right? That includes ownership.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 15):
And even 1:1, if you need to carry more then ~400 people (assuming a "real" config and not the defaults B and A use to reach their 450/555 numbers), then it doesn't matter if the A388 is not quite as efficient, since a 748I can't get the job done, anyway.

Exactly. Once you need 451 seats, the B747-8 becomes irrelevant. However, it's not many times that airlines sit down and find that to be true.

 airplane QFA001
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16357
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Randy Says: 748 To Have Lowest Casm Period

Wed Nov 16, 2005 3:31 pm

Quoting STT757 (Reply 10):
First deliveries in 2009.



Quoting NAV20 (Reply 12):
First delivery third-quarter 2009, according to Boeing.

Thanks, so its just a paper aeroplane for a while, guess it will change shape as many times as the 787 did until its design is fixed.

Been told they are having the A350 engines on them, not the 787 engines, i.e. GEnx with bleed, not the bleedless 787 ones, anyone confirm ?

I did laugh when all the people who were bashing the A350 as just being a updated 330 to compete with the all new 787 didn’t make the same comments to say the 747-800 was nothing more than an updated 744 to compete with the all new A380.

I also have to laugh at Boeing with their comments on the A380 market, i.e. no need for large aircraft, people only want to fly point to point in smaller ultra long haul aircraft, hub and spoke is dead etc etc.

Also have to laugh at the people saying that quads are gone, no-one will ever buy quads again, they are inefficient, overweight etc etc etc etc.

This announcement by Boeing is the biggest vindication of the long haul strategy airbus has been taking to industry, I wonder if they are going to push for 330 minute ETOPS say quads are just as safe as twins now they have a quad of their own on the market.

So now boeing has a product to take away from the 777-200 - the 787, and to take away from the 777-300ER, the 747-800, could one read into that that the 777 is not the aeroplane people think it is, it needs other aircraft in the family to appeal to all aspects of the market.

Why would you buy a 777-300/777-300ER if you could buy a cheaper higher payload longer ranger newer 747 ?

Why would you buy a 777-200 when the 787 is cheaper ?

I love my quads, 744, 340, 380, only way to travel.
 
BoomBoom
Posts: 2459
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Randy Says: 748 To Have Lowest Casm Period

Wed Nov 16, 2005 3:49 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 18):
Why would you buy a 777-200 when the 787 is cheaper ?

That's like asking why would you buy an A380 when the A320 is cheaper  Confused
 
M27
Posts: 409
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:25 am

RE: Randy Says: 748 To Have Lowest Casm Period

Wed Nov 16, 2005 3:57 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 18):
Why would you buy a 777-300/777-300ER if you could buy a cheaper higher payload longer ranger newer 747 ?

My guess would be when you don't need to carry 400 passengers or more! Also for the same reason some may buy the A359 instead of the A380.
 
redflyer
Posts: 3910
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Randy Says: 748 To Have Lowest Casm Period

Wed Nov 16, 2005 4:18 pm

Quoting Wiggidy (Reply 13):
And with the incredible interest airlines have voiced, I think it will happen as soon as possible.

I haven't heard of "incredible interest". It has only sold 159 copies in the four years since launch with the majority of those coming in the first two years.

Quoting Wiggidy (Reply 13):
The only question I have is why didnt A start with the A389? Im sure someone knows.

Probably because they don't think the market is there yet to support the 389; although, a certain M.E. airline thinks otherwise. Don't forget: Airbus expects the 380 to be in active service for upwards of 40 years so I'm sure they wanted to be ready if and when the market was ready to support an aircraft the size of the 389.

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 17):
Thus, even if we believe Airbus' "15% gap" (which we shouldn't, just ask the airlines that have bought it),

Huh? What airlines don't believe in the 15% gap?

Quoting Zeke (Reply 18):
Thanks, so its just a paper aeroplane for a while, guess it will change shape as many times as the 787 did until its design is fixed.

Hardly a paper airplane. It has been flying for over 35 years. The 748 is just a derivative.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 18):
I did laugh when all the people who were bashing the A350 as just being a updated 330 to compete with the all new 787 didn’t make the same comments to say the 747-800 was nothing more than an updated 744 to compete with the all new A380.

The 747 does not compete with the 380 (despite what the layman's media outlets may have reported this morning).

Quoting Zeke (Reply 18):
I also have to laugh at Boeing with their comments on the A380 market, i.e. no need for large aircraft, people only want to fly point to point in smaller ultra long haul aircraft, hub and spoke is dead etc etc.

Boeing has only stated that the market is fragmenting more towards point-to-point, not consolidating toward more hub-to-hub. They also said people "prefer" to fly direct to their destinations. As one who flies roughly 200k miles each year, their perceptions of peoples' preferences are accurate. Nevertheless, in the final analysis, they made those comments to justify their commercial feasibility analysis of whether or not to enter the VLA market. The analysis that was done a decade ago has so far proved correct. But that is not to say it will always stay correct. And if and when it changes, I'm sure they will change their rhetoric as well. I did notice with amusement how they said that they expect the market for 747 sized aircraft or larger to be around 900 airplanes over the next 20 years. Just five years ago they were saying the market would be around 450.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 18):
Also have to laugh at the people saying that quads are gone, no-one will ever buy quads again, they are inefficient, overweight etc etc etc etc.

They are not as efficient as a twin. And if there was an engine big enough to sling under the 748's wings, I'm sure they would have designed it as a twin. Unfortunately, two engines are insufficient to safely power an aircraft with a MTOW in excess of 900,000 lbs.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 18):
Why would you buy a 777-300/777-300ER if you could buy a cheaper higher payload longer ranger newer 747 ?

Maybe because you can't fill the 747 for the markets you want to serve?

Quoting Zeke (Reply 18):
Why would you buy a 777-200 when the 787 is cheaper ?

Maybe because the 787 can't carry as many passengers for the markets you want to serve?

Quoting Zeke (Reply 18):
I love my quads, 744, 340, 380, only way to travel.

I do too. They certainly look better. But, unfortunately, they're not as economical as twins.
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: Randy Says: 748 To Have Lowest Casm Period

Wed Nov 16, 2005 4:19 pm

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 4):
will Airbus counter shortly with the A389?



Quoting BoeingBus (Reply 5):
Not sure that this will ever happen as a total redesign of the wing will be needed because of the recent ICAO report on wake turbulence data.



Quoting Wiggidy (Reply 13):
The A389 will happen, its not really a question.

The WhaleJet may eventually be stretched (or may not be) if Airbus can resolve the wake turbulence problems. If Airbus cannot resolve the wake turbulence problem, then there will be few if any additional WhaleJet orders of any size.

I do think that Airbus will be able to resolve the wake turbulence problem and I rather doubt that it will require "a total redesign of the wing" though the partial redesign of the wing may be expensive in both time and money.
 
PlaneDane
Posts: 346
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 3:08 am

RE: Randy Says: 748 To Have Lowest Casm Period

Wed Nov 16, 2005 4:24 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 18):
Been told they are having the A350 engines on them, not the 787 engines, i.e. GEnx with bleed, not the bleedless 787 ones, anyone confirm ?



Yes, GEnx engines, that's right. What is your point here, Zeke?

Quoting Zeke (Reply 18):
I did laugh when all the people who were bashing the A350 as just being a updated 330 to compete with the all new 787 didn’t make the same comments to say the 747-800 was nothing more than an updated 744 to compete with the all new A380.

It could be because the 7478 is an updated 744 and nobody is claiming otherwise. It is Leahy who continues to claim the the A350 is all-new when it most certainly isn't.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 18):
I also have to laugh at Boeing with their comments on the A380 market, i.e. no need for large aircraft, people only want to fly point to point in smaller ultra long haul aircraft, hub and spoke is dead etc etc.

Market predictions from Boeing haven't changed. The B748 qualifies as a Large Aircraft and the A380 qualifies as a Very Large Aircraft. Those are different size classifications.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 18):
This announcement by Boeing is the biggest vindication of the long haul strategy airbus has been taking to industry, I wonder if they are going to push for 330 minute ETOPS say quads are just as safe as twins now they have a quad of their own on the market.

Now that they have a quad of their own on the market, you say? Hasn't this Boeing quad been around, in various derivatives, for well over three decades already?
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15181
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Randy Says: 748 To Have Lowest Casm Period

Wed Nov 16, 2005 4:37 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 18):
Thanks, so its just a paper aeroplane for a while, guess it will change shape as many times as the 787 did until its design is fixed.

Not quite. We KNOW what the shape will be, what the engines will be, the cowels, the tail, the length. We have the 744 to look at, we have the 787 engines to look at.

The wings might change. Other than that, it's not going to all of a sudden look like a shark or anything...

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 21):
although, a certain M.E. airline thinks otherwise.

As does a certain U.S. freight carrier.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 18):

I did laugh when all the people who were bashing the A350 as just being a updated 330 to compete with the all new 787 didn’t make the same comments to say the 747-800 was nothing more than an updated 744 to compete with the all new A380.

The 748 IS there as a quick derivative to help take some 380 orders away, but also as a cargo platform for the long term. Who's denying that?

I laugh that Airbus and certain boosters still think the A350 is NOT a derivative of the A330.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16357
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Randy Says: 748 To Have Lowest Casm Period

Wed Nov 16, 2005 5:00 pm

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 17):
Anyone interested in applying some old rule-of-thumb quick analyses?

Airbus says that the A380 (555 seats) can beat the B747-400 (416) on seat-mile costs by 15%. Boeing says that the B747-8 can beat the -400 fuel burn by -14%. (Based on what I know about the GEnx and CF6-80, this seems to be an accurate figure.)

So?

First Rule of Thumb
In today's prices, fuel is conservatively 30% of operating cost. So, just on fuel-burn alone, the B747-8 should have -4.2% seat-mile costs vs B747-400. On fuel alone, that closes Airbus' "15% gap" (which I'm here to tell you, doesn't exist) to 10.8%.

Second Rule of Thumb
For each 2% of extra passengers carried by a stretch, the seat-mile costs are reduced by 1%. The B747-8 (450) has 8.2% more seats than a -400. Corrected to taking out the fuel component that we used in above, the -8 has another -2.9% improvement on the -400.

Look at how QF configure their new 744ER either 343 or 358 seats. If the 748 stretch allows for one additional row of business on the upper and main deck, thats an additional 11 seats over the 744ER, or 354/369 seats.

From the QF web site

Quote:
Fleet Developments
To ensure Qantas maintains its reputation as one of the leading airlines in the world, we are continuing to invest in new aircraft, aircraft enhancements and infrastructure.

A380
As part of our 85th Birthday celebrations in November, Qantas brought out the first A380 aircraft to Australia. The A380 visited Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne.

Qantas have ordered 12 A380 aircraft with options for 10 more, with the first aircraft being delivered in April 2007. The purchase of the A380 continues our multi-billion dollar program to provide the most up-to-date and efficient fleet.

The aircraft will be operated in a three class, 501 seat configuration on international services between Australia and the United States and on the Kangaroo Route to the United Kingdom. We will also make aviation history by operating the longest 500-passenger service in the world, flying between Melbourne and Los Angeles (12,749 km).

The interior design for the A380 aircraft will provide new levels of comfort for passengers and will feature, among other things new seat designs, special lounge areas, video on demand, internet capability and larger entertainment screens.

The first flight of the revolutionary new A380 aircraft occurred in Toulouse, France on 27 April 2005.

The A380 will enable Qantas to carry more people, further, than ever before. Plus, its technical capabilities will deliver real operational efficiencies and significant improvements in terms of environmental performance.

Taking the better 748 estimate of 369 seats is still a long way off the 501 seat A380 configuration, would you agree around 25% difference ?

Third Rule of Thumb

The 380 will still take more passenger than a 748, using QF numbers about 130 more, with more freight under the floor.

Fourth Rule of Thumb

With 501 instead of 555 seats, the QF A380 will have a cost per seat mile around 11% more than what Airbus says.

Fifth Rule of Thumb

With 368 instead of 454 seats, the QF 748 will have a cost per seat mile around 23 % more than what Boeing says.

Sixth Rule of Thumb

Rule of thumb analysis can show whatever you want it to show.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 21):
Hardly a paper airplane. It has been flying for over 35 years. The 748 is just a derivative.

New wings, new engines, new systems..its nothing more than a paper aircraft until its flying. I also think the A350 is a paper aeroplane, and the 737NG was until it was certified, you could not buy one and put it in your fleet.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 21):
The analysis that was done a decade ago has so far proved correct. But that is not to say it will always stay correct. And if and when it changes, I'm sure they will change their rhetoric as well.

Yes I also noticed that subtle difference, 100% increase.

Quoting PlaneDane (Reply 23):
Yes, GEnx engines, that's right. What is your point here, Zeke?

If the are the GEnx with bleed, you could not swap the 787 engines onto the 748 when they get tired like operators now do with the 767 and 744. You could if you had A350s.

Quoting PlaneDane (Reply 23):
It could be because the 7478 is an updated 744 and nobody is claiming otherwise. It is Leahy who continues to claim the the A350 is all-new when it most certainly isn't.

Incorrect, airbus said the 330 will compete with the 787, the 350 is being certified as a 330 derivative, marketed as the 350.

Quoting PlaneDane (Reply 23):
Market predictions from Boeing haven't changed.

They have increased their predictions from 450 aircraft to 900 aircraft.

Quoting PlaneDane (Reply 23):
Now that they have a quad of their own on the market, you say? Hasn't this Boeing quad been around, in various derivatives, for well over three decades already?

They didn’t have a competitive quad, sales and deliveries have basically ground to a halt.
 
RedChili
Posts: 1440
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 9:23 am

RE: Randy Says: 748 To Have Lowest Casm Period

Wed Nov 16, 2005 5:19 pm

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 21):
haven't heard of "incredible interest". It has only sold 159 copies in the four years since launch with the majority of those coming in the first two years.

Depends on what you mean with "incredible interest." Airbus has stated that they expect to sell between 700-750 frames. With 159 orders plus almost 100 options, the airplane has already sold between 23 percent and 35 percent of the total number expected by Airbus.

Quoting PlaneDane (Reply 23):
Market predictions from Boeing haven't changed. The B748 qualifies as a Large Aircraft and the A380 qualifies as a Very Large Aircraft. Those are different size classifications.

Boeing predicts 900 sales of "747 and larger" planes. They certainly do put the 744, 748 and A388 in the same category.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16357
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Randy Says: 748 To Have Lowest Casm Period

Wed Nov 16, 2005 5:32 pm

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 17):
says that the B747-8 can beat the -400 fuel burn by -14%.

Just looked at the new Boeing 748 web site, Boeing are claiming a 450 seat 748 will have a 0.3% higher trip cost over a 744. They claim a 380 with 542 seats will have a 28% increased trip cost.

Boeing are also claiming a 450 seat 748 will have a 7% lower seat mile cost over a 744. They also claim a 380 with 542 seats will have a 1% lower seat mile cost over a 744.

I dont think anyone on this site will disagree that this does not match up with numbers boeing has previously claimed.

One one part of their site they are saying the 748 is 450 pax, another part, 744 plus 38 seats in three class, thats 454, which is correct ?

Things are not adding up.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7439
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Randy Says: 748 To Have Lowest Casm Period

Wed Nov 16, 2005 5:35 pm

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 17):
IMHO, what has happened today is that the A380 is cornered

Good "A380 is Dead" post this morning, QFA001. Enjoyed it. Thanks  Wink

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 17):
Boeing says that the B747-8 can beat the -400 fuel burn by -14%. (Based on what I know about the GEnx and CF6-80, this seems to be an accurate figure.)

Boeing do quote a number, but it's not that one  Smile

Quoting PlaneDane (Reply 23):
It could be because the 7478 is an updated 744 and nobody is claiming otherwise. It is Leahy who continues to claim the the A350 is all-new when it most certainly isn't.

I'll agree with you on that point.

But I'll bet my money that Zeke is laughing because those throwing this allegation down at the the A350, do so as part of the biggest put-down of all time (outside of the A380, naturally), and quote it as nothing but a disadvantage?
But somehow, for the 748, this attribute is nothing but an advantage.

Unbelievable. Keep laughing, Zeke  checkmark .

Quoting Lumberton (Thread starter):
It will be interesting to see how Mr. Leahy and company try to rebut this in the future.

You can also bet your bottom dollar if you replaced "Randy" with "Leahy" and "748" with "A388" or any other A aircraft, this thread would already be well over 100 posts, saying how full of S**T Leahy/Airbus/A380 are, and how no-one but an idiot would believe anything they say?

Me, I'll believe it when I see it.

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 8):
the 747 airframe is well "learned out" and Boeing is going to ship them cheap!

And unfortunately still full of 35 year old build cost drivers (which, incidentally, CATIA wouldn't change)....... Smile

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 21):
Just five years ago they were saying the market would be around 450.

That number is now exclusively reserved for aircraft OVER 450 seats.
Given that the 747 has now just "grown" to 450 seats, I guess their market forecast hasn't changed.
Interesting how only 50 of those frames are forecast to be freighters, though. FEDEX might have a different view, but, hey, what do they know?  Wink ....
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14613
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Randy Says: 748 To Have Lowest Casm Period

Wed Nov 16, 2005 5:50 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 25):
Zeke From Canada, joined Feb 2002, 390 posts, RR: 5

I'm surprices with the ease people around here absorb the comparison of a B748's 450 high density cabin config example with an A380 550 seater low dens cabin. (didn't they see the big * disclaimer in the newplane site?)

As I predicted Boeing succeeded in taking a receptive public for a ride here! Airlines know better..
 
iwok
Posts: 979
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 2:35 pm

RE: Randy Says: 748 To Have Lowest Casm Period

Wed Nov 16, 2005 5:51 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 27):
Things are not adding up.

what's not adding up here is what in the h&^l your point is; other than the fact that you're in love with 4-holers, primarily of the Airbus variety.  Embarrassment

The 748 is going to be a great addition to the family, and it has a lot going for it to give the seat-mile cost advantages; better structural efficiency, better engines etc. Its a cost effective intermediate that may wind up in production for another 20-years. You never know...

-iwok
 
HS748
Posts: 621
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 3:01 am

RE: Randy Says: 748 To Have Lowest Casm Period

Wed Nov 16, 2005 5:52 pm

The 748 is NOT, repeat NOT, a product of the Boeing company. Surely all you 'experts' should know this.
 
Lemurs
Posts: 1320
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 5:13 am

RE: Randy Says: 748 To Have Lowest Casm Period

Wed Nov 16, 2005 5:54 pm

Quoting Keesje (Reply 29):
As I predicted Boeing succeeded in taking a receptive public for a ride here! Airlines know better..

Which is why so many of them are in terrible financial shape. True geniuses there.

We all know the only smart people who know anything about aircraft or airline operations all spend their time here on A.net after all.  Yeah sure
 
airfrnt
Posts: 2181
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 2:05 am

RE: Randy Says: 748 To Have Lowest Casm Period

Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:00 pm

Quoting Lumberton (Thread starter):
This is an incredibly audacious statement to make! They have to feel pretty confident to have their number one P.R. guy come out and say this. It will be interesting to see how Mr. Leahy and company try to rebut this in the future.

It's just as intellectually dishonest as the trickets Airbus uses to try and state that the Airbus A350 has better CASM numbers then the 787. Airbus's decision to build the 380 with a streach may allow a the 747 to "punch above it's weight" in terms of CASM numbers vis a vi the A380, but until you have the final numbers, ignore the marketting hype.
 
PlaneDane
Posts: 346
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 3:08 am

RE: Randy Says: 748 To Have Lowest Casm Period

Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:08 pm

Quoting RedChili (Reply 26):
Quoting PlaneDane (Reply 23):
Market predictions from Boeing haven't changed. The B748 qualifies as a Large Aircraft and the A380 qualifies as a Very Large Aircraft. Those are different size classifications.

Boeing predicts 900 sales of "747 and larger" planes. They certainly do put the 744, 748 and A388 in the same category.

I'll try explaining this once more. It's simple arithmetic and here's the equation:

B748 = Large Aircraft (LA)
A388 = Very Large Aircraft (VLA)

Large Aircraft (LA) + Very Large Aircraft (VLA) = 900 sales

Market predictions for LA remain the same and so do those for VLA.

Any questions?
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16357
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Randy Says: 748 To Have Lowest Casm Period

Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:10 pm

Quoting Keesje (Reply 29):
I'm surprices with the ease people around here absorb the comparison of a B748's 450 high density cabin config example with an A380 550 seater low dens cabin. (didn't they see the big * disclaimer in the newplane site?)

As I predicted Boeing succeeded in taking a receptive public for a ride here! Airlines know better..

Umm I didnt, I said it didnt add up, and now your saying they are taking the public for a ride ?

Quoting Iwok (Reply 30):
The 748 is going to be a great addition to the family, and it has a lot going for it to give the seat-mile cost advantages; better structural efficiency, better engines etc. Its a cost effective intermediate that may wind up in production for another 20-years. You never know...

The 744 was my first quad, I like them. The numbers are not adding up, to quote Keesje "Boeing succeeded in taking a receptive public for a ride". That makes me think others also think the same.

I expected with the lower TSFC GEnx engines, better aerodynamics, the cost for a flight would be lower than that of a 744, they are saying its 0.3% higher.

Things dont add up.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15181
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Randy Says: 748 To Have Lowest Casm Period

Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:32 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 25):
Look at how QF configure their new 744ER either 343 or 358 seats. If the 748 stretch allows for one additional row of business on the upper and main deck, thats an additional 11 seats over the 744ER, or 354/369 seats.

And 2 rows of Y. There are two extensions. That's 31 real seats, or 374/389 for QF.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 29):
I'm surprices with the ease people around here absorb the comparison of a B748's 450 high density cabin config example with an A380 550 seater low dens cabin. (didn't they see the big * disclaimer in the newplane site?)

What are you talking about? The 550 seat A388 is NOT low density. In fact, the Boeing 744/748 premium/econ ratios are higher than the Airbus numbers. The A388 only offers wider seats should airlines choose them, but that has nothing do with high or low density.

A low density A388 is about 475 seats, which is what we are seeing roughly from airlines that fly lower density/higher luxury long haul aircraft. A low density 748 would be 375-390 seats.

Seems like you are the one trying to confuse the issue. But what's new about that?

Quoting HS748 (Reply 31):
The 748 is NOT, repeat NOT, a product of the Boeing company. Surely all you 'experts' should know this.

Yeah, we know, we know, get over it.

There have been plenty of car companies that have used the same number for their car that other companies used in the past.

The world learned to deal with it.
 
RedChili
Posts: 1440
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 9:23 am

RE: Randy Says: 748 To Have Lowest Casm Period

Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:46 pm

Quoting HS748 (Reply 31):
The 748 is NOT, repeat NOT, a product of the Boeing company. Surely all you 'experts' should know this.

Saab also had a 340 before Airbus had one.
 
Joni
Posts: 2613
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 11:05 pm

RE: Randy Says: 748 To Have Lowest Casm Period

Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:53 pm

Quoting Lumberton (Thread starter):
Quote:
One of the great things about the 747-8 Intercontinental is that with its improved fuel consumption and other efficiencies it will have the lowest seat-mile cost of any passenger airplane.

It isn't stated here that the A380 is included in that comparison, and in fact I'd be inclined to assume he means the lowest seat-mile cost of any passenger plane now in commercial use. After all, he's not exactly in a position to even know what the actual seat-mile cost of the A380 is.

Quoting BoeingBus (Reply 5):
Not sure that this will ever happen as a total redesign of the wing will be needed because of the recent ICAO report on wake turbulence data. This is very bad news for Airbus even worse than the lauch fo the 748. I hoe Airbus can work this out.

The A388 wing was designed from the start to accomodate also the stretch, and the ICAO report has zero impact on this.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16357
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Randy Says: 748 To Have Lowest Casm Period

Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:53 pm

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 36):
And 2 rows of Y. There are two extensions. That's 31 real seats, or 374/389 for QF.

Im a bit thick, can you explain that in a little more detail. How would you fit an additional two rows of Y and a 6' 6.5" skybed in the longer 748.

I thought best case they would get an additional row of skybeds in Zone F and B, 11 skybeds, worst case one row of skybeds in Zone C, 7 seats.

Seat maps here http://www.qantas.com.au/info/flying/inTheAir/ourAircraft/seatMap744ER
 
JetMaster
Posts: 583
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 7:46 am

RE: Randy Says: 748 To Have Lowest Casm Period

Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:03 pm

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 1):
Granted, the 748 will be efficient, probably much more than the A380 at a similar config.

You mean with luxurious F and C classes located in the cargo bay?  Wink


Regards,
JM
 
HS748
Posts: 621
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 3:01 am

RE: Randy Says: 748 To Have Lowest Casm Period

Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:14 pm

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 36):
The world learned to deal with it.

Don't be such a patronising git.

Quoting RedChili (Reply 37):
Saab also had a 340 before Airbus had one.

Do some research before posting - the code for a Saab 340 is SF3.
 
iwok
Posts: 979
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 2:35 pm

RE: Randy Says: 748 To Have Lowest Casm Period

Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:19 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 39):
can you explain that in a little more detail. How would you fit an additional two rows of Y and a 6' 6.5" skybed in the longer 748.

I thought best case they would get an additional row of skybeds in Zone F and B, 11 skybeds, worst case one row of skybeds in Zone C, 7 seats.

Looks like the 748i stretch is almost 12'. Should be able to make everything fit.
http://www.boeing.com/randy/images/747a01_lg.jpg

iwok
 
RedChili
Posts: 1440
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 9:23 am

RE: Randy Says: 748 To Have Lowest Casm Period

Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:26 pm

Quoting HS748 (Reply 41):
Do some research before posting - the code for a Saab 340 is SF3.

Maybe you should also. As Zeke pointed out in the following thread, What Will Be The Code For A 747-800? (by HS748 Nov 16 2005 in Civil Aviation) the IATA code for the HS-748 is HS7.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14613
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Randy Says: 748 To Have Lowest Casm Period

Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:46 pm

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 36):
And 2 rows of Y. There are two extensions. That's 31 real seats, or 374/389 for QF.

- QF CEO Dixon confirmed last week a LH fleet decision will be made Dec 7
- Boeing said there will be no more B748 sales this year.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- +
-> not so sure QF will order Boeing 747-8's..


On the configurations :

A standard normal 2 class configuration (15% business at 60 inch) would probably seat about 600 in a A380. That is without the bars and other nice stuff you don't find on current 747's. A B748 in that configurartion probably seats about 420-440. A B748 with the stairs, bars & stuff: 390?

You can't blame Boeing for using these figures.

However blindly accepting them is a choice.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7439
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Randy Says: 748 To Have Lowest Casm Period

Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:47 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 27):
Just looked at the new Boeing 748 web site, Boeing are claiming a 450 seat 748 will have a 0.3% higher trip cost over a 744. They claim a 380 with 542 seats will have a 28% increased trip cost.

Which is interesting, because until then, Boeing were quoting 6% LOWER trip cost over 744 for 74-8, and 12% higher than 747 for A388.

To my simple mind, that's an 18% difference between 74-8 and A388, but for that you get 22% more seats and 33% more cabin space.......

As you say, Zeke, the targets moving all the time.
 
Thorben
Posts: 2713
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 10:29 pm

RE: Randy Says: 748 To Have Lowest Casm Period

Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:50 pm

That guy can claim whatever he wants, Boeing also claimed things like 4 engines are bad, passengers want smaller planes, etc. How do you know they are telling BS? They move the lips. They'll again bend all factors to their favor and then come up with some result claiming their plane was better. Let him talk.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16357
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Randy Says: 748 To Have Lowest Casm Period

Thu Nov 17, 2005 12:01 am

Quoting Iwok (Reply 42):
Looks like the 748i stretch is almost 12'. Should be able to make everything fit

Thanks Iwok, saw Randy said its 11'8" longer, just wondering how one would add a 6' 6.5" skybed and 62" of Y seats in 11'8", if its even, each plug is 5' 10".

You could deffo put the extra two rows on Y in as you suggested, looking at the aft location of the plug, seems QF has a galley there, do you think they would gain 20 or 12 Y ?

See they have adjusted down from 38 to 34 additional seats over the 744 from earlier today, giving a consistent 450 seats over the site.

Quoting Thorben (Reply 46):
That guy can claim whatever he wants, Boeing also claimed things like 4 engines are bad, passengers want smaller planes, etc. How do you know they are telling BS? They move the lips. They'll again bend all factors to their favor and then come up with some result claiming their plane was better. Let him talk.

Boeing make good aircraft, and market them well. Please if you have something constructive to say join in, if you see inconsistencies, please speak up, point them out in a balanced way.
 
SNATH
Posts: 3049
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 5:23 am

RE: Randy Says: 748 To Have Lowest Casm Period

Thu Nov 17, 2005 12:38 am

Quoting Thorben (Reply 46):
They'll again bend all factors to their favor and then come up with some result claiming their plane was better.

Both Boeing and Airbus, as well as any other large corporation I know of, do exactly this when marketing their products. And good for them too. Your point?

Tony
 
DAYflyer
Posts: 3546
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Randy Says: 748 To Have Lowest Casm Period

Thu Nov 17, 2005 12:56 am

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 2):
I think Airbus was betting on Boeing not developing the 748, and in hindsight may have redesigned the A388 to be lighter and possibly smaller, but with less stretching potential. The A389 - should it come to fruition - will be more efficient though

I agree to a degree. I think Airbus did not think that B would launch it. I also think that the -900 will only be more efficient if it is filled to capacity. It is a very different hing to fill 450 seat rather than 800.

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