747-8 Model Turning Heads

jacobin777 · Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:55 am

some interesting stuff here..

fair use excerpt:

"Lufthansa and Singapore Airlines both operate older 747-400s, and the newer model would make a good fit in their respective long-haul fleets, executives of both airlines said in interviews.

.....The two airlines also are considering Boeing's 787, although the chief executive of Lufthansa said he is most interested in the 787-10, a stretch version that Boeing only recently said it will develop.

.....The airline (SQ) has been evaluating Boeing's 787 for nearly two years, but delayed a decision on ordering the plane until it had time to study the proposed A350 from Airbus.

...."The 787 is a good clean-sheet design," he (SQ) said.

...."The A350 as it now stands is not without its attractions," he (SQ)said, "particularly if the price advantage over the 787 can be significant enough."

...."It is in the running," Chew said of the 777-200LR

....In addition to the 777-200LR, Chew said, Singapore Airlines is seriously considering the passenger version of the 747-8. It will be the first-ever stretch of the 747 and is due to enter service in 2009.

..The A380 is about six months late, but Chew said Airbus has told him the first plane should be delivered by the end of November, allowing it to be in service before the end of the year.....

.....Lufthansa is also considering the 787 and A350. But Mayrhuber said he is only interested in the bigger 787.

"The minimum for us would be the 787-9. Even better would be the 787-10," he said."

full article at......

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/266659_boeing14.html

flydreamliner · Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:05 am

I'd love to see singapore pick up the 748. It would truly give them a fleet with an aircraft perfectly suited for every route.

Scorpio · Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:08 am

Kind of surprising to see LH only interested in the 787-10, and not the 787-3. I always thought that was the most likely 787 version for Lufthansa, as a replacement for the A300.

zippyjet · Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:09 am

It would be cool if LY bought these uber birds and 787s to replace their 767s. Nothing against Airbus but, LY has done well by Boeing! Well, maybe LY should check out the 380.

Iloveboeing · Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:16 am

Quoting Zippyjet (Reply 3):
It would be cool if LY bought these uber birds and 787s to replace their 767s. Nothing against Airbus but, LY has done well by Boeing! Well, maybe LY should check out the 380.

Well, they've already ordered 15 A380s, so I guess they would use the 748s for routes that are a bit smaller....

andessmf · Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:18 am

I keep getting shocked by the airlines interest in the 787-10. Now we can add LH to the list of interested parties.

Scorpio · Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:22 am

Quoting Iloveboeing (Reply 4):
Well, they've already ordered 15 A380s, so I guess they would use the 748s for routes that are a bit smaller....

El Al has ordered 15 A380s? Gee, I never knew Wink

Iloveboeing · Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:23 am

Quoting Scorpio (Reply 6):
El Al has ordered 15 A380s? Gee, I never knew

Oops, Sorry. I meant Lufthansa.

lightsaber · Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:27 am

Quoting Iloveboeing (Reply 4):
Well, they've already ordered 15 A380s, so I guess they would use the 748s for routes that are a bit smaller....

While I like the 748, it seems wiser to "abuse" the A388... But I'm sure LH has good acountants.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 5):
I keep getting shocked by the airlines interest in the 787-10. Now we can add LH to the list of interested parties.

I'm not. The CASM will be great on the 787-10. Besides, when it enters service is about when the earliest 772's are due to exit passanger service anyway. (For the short timeframe replacement airlines.)

Lightsaber

jacobin777 · Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:28 am

this is the part I didn't like..

LH- "A decision could come before the end of the year."..say what? weren't people here mentioning "soon"...

""The size of the 747-8 will find a place in our future fleet, but the economics and the numbers have to be right," Chew said of the ongoing evaluation."

to me, he's saying...."Boeing, give us a good price and we'll pick some up"..

"Chew said the Singapore Airlines board will meet in early May to consider a possible widebody order.

"At that time, they will evaluate the situation and if the numbers fall the right way, I suppose the board will give management the mandate to proceed," he said."

i.e.-"give us a good deal, and we'll but they planes".....

[Edited 2006-04-14 20:31:14]

atmx2000 · Sat Apr 15, 2006 5:49 am

Quoting Scorpio (Reply 2):
Kind of surprising to see LH only interested in the 787-10, and not the 787-3. I always thought that was the most likely 787 version for Lufthansa, as a replacement for the A300.

Maybe the competitive environment makes widebodies for short haul a risk proposition, especially for one that is even bigger than their A300s.

Tifoso · Sat Apr 15, 2006 5:58 am

Quoting Jacobin777 (Thread starter):
"The minimum for us would be the 787-9. Even better would be the 787-10," he said."

Damn, no 783s then. banghead

Is there any other airline that may buy this variant of the 787?

jacobin777 · Sat Apr 15, 2006 6:14 am

Quoting Tifoso (Reply 11):
Is there any other airline that may buy this variant of the 787?

not too many it seems.....maybe AA will use them to replace their A300's..or possibly PK...

fortunately, it doesn't impede on all the other 787 orders...and hopefully the massive 787-10 sales which seems inevitable...

boysteve · Sat Apr 15, 2006 7:36 am

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 1):
I'd love to see singapore pick up the 748. It would truly give them a fleet with an aircraft perfectly suited for every route

I'd be surprised if they do so in the short/medium term. They have a shed full of 747's in storeage and like the B77X. Surely SQ will go with 772, 773 and the A380, thus giving aircraft with ~300, ~380 and 480 seats.

Stitch · Sat Apr 15, 2006 7:47 am

Quoting Scorpio (Reply 2):
Kind of surprising to see LH only interested in the 787-10, and not the 787-3. I always thought that was the most likely 787 version for Lufthansa, as a replacement for the A300.

I guess LH has decided greater frequency with large narrowbodies like the A321 makes more sense for them.

The 787-10 would be a good replacement for their 29 A343s, allowing LH to add capacity (and range?). That leaves 17 A346s (including those being delivered), but perhaps LH would prefer to have just three tiers of widebodies. The 787-10, 747-8, and A380 would cover the ~300, ~400, and ~500 seat markets.

Not being interested in the 787-8 means their 10 A330s are going to be sticking around for awhile and perhaps they might add some additional frames...

jacobin777 · Sat Apr 15, 2006 8:23 am

Quoting Boysteve (Reply 13):
I'd be surprised if they do so in the short/medium term. They have a shed full of 747's in storeage and like the B77X. Surely SQ will go with 772, 773 and the A380, thus giving aircraft with ~300, ~380 and 480 seats.

the 747-400's aren't a problem with SQ, they have been fully depreciated, and the 747-8 will provide increase capacity, as well as better economics than the 747-8.....

as I said, to me, it seems SQ want a better price from Boeing....

""At that time, they will evaluate the situation and if the numbers fall the right way, I suppose the board will give management the mandate to proceed," he said."

"The size of the 747-8 will find a place in our future fleet, but the economics and the numbers have to be right," Chew said of the ongoing evaluation."

stirling · Sat Apr 15, 2006 8:31 am

Wait a minute.....
The 747 has never been stretched?

Doesn't the upper deck qualify?

lightsaber · Sat Apr 15, 2006 8:34 am

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 12):
Quoting Tifoso (Reply 11):
Is there any other airline that may buy this variant of the 787?

not too many it seems.....maybe AA will use them to replace their A300's..or possibly PK...

fortunately, it doesn't impede on all the other 787 orders...and hopefully the massive 787-10 sales which seems inevitable...

I truely wonder if the 783 has become a small niche aircraft that was just used to launch the program. Why? I expect AA to replace the A300's with 738's or whatever replaces the MD-80s and not introduce another fleet type. Yes, I understand the carribean benifits from the A300's cargo. But hey, every other route is limiting baggage, why not to the Carribean? spin

Tidbit: I found out today that Boeing is going to increase the 748 staffing. In fact we're losing prior-747 engineers back to Boeing as part of the effort. The *rumor* is that Boeing needs the added talent into order to parallel engineer the 748I and 748F. wideeyed

So something is happening! yes

Is it hope on Boeing's part or an order? But then again, they'll be working 748F... scratchchin

So it could just be normal manning up. Sad

But I thought I'd share.

Lightsaber

jacobin777 · Sat Apr 15, 2006 9:07 am

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 17):
Tidbit: I found out today that Boeing is going to increase the 748 staffing. In fact we're losing prior-747 engineers back to Boeing as part of the effort. The *rumor* is that Boeing needs the added talent into order to parallel engineer the 748I and 748F. So something is happening! { yes} Is it hope on Boeing's part or an order? But then again, they'll be working 748F... So it could just be normal manning up. {Sad} But I thought I'd share.

I'm glad you shared this tidbit of info......to me...it seems as if the 747-8 orders are going to start to ramp up soon.. pray

of course, if its just the latter of your info..then it would suck... Sad

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 17):
I truely wonder if the 783 has become a small niche aircraft that was just used to launch the program. Why? I expect AA to replace the A300's with 738's or whatever replaces the MD-80s and not introduce another fleet type. Yes, I understand the carribean benifits from the A300's cargo. But hey, every other route is limiting baggage, why not to the Carribean?

I agree, I think the 783 was used as the "launch"...but what a springboard it has turned out to be!

That being said, carriers will have the opportunity to order a whole series of planes within the 787 series to suit their needs with the 777-300ER and the 747-8I rounding out the larger planes (of course, the converse holds true for Airbus, but the problem is the A358 doesn't really address the 787-8 or 787-3 situation, and.....well..we know of the current A345/A346 situation...)

stirling · Sat Apr 15, 2006 10:51 am

I know in one of the 8 million posts concerning the 787 my answer can be found...but asking here is so much easier and faster! (and yes I realize this is a 747 thread...but after all, the 787 was brought up!)

What are the defining characteristics of the 787 Family?
Interested in:

MTOW
Max Pax/Typical 2-class
Range
Fuselage Length
Wingspan
Engine Thrust
Entry into Service dates

Thanks!

[Edited 2006-04-15 03:52:14]

Cruiser · Sat Apr 15, 2006 11:03 am

Quoting Jacobin777 (Thread starter):
...."The A350 as it now stands is not without its attractions," he (SQ)said, "particularly if the price advantage over the 787 can be significant enough."

I wonder how significant he means? Based on his comments a week or so ago and these comments, it seems that the A350 will only win if it is significantly cheaper.

This is going to be interesting...

James

jacobin777 · Sat Apr 15, 2006 11:21 am

Quoting Stirling (Reply 19):
I know in one of the 8 million posts concerning the 787 my answer can be found...but asking here is so much easier and faster! (and yes I realize this is a 747 thread...but after all, the 787 was brought up!)

What are the defining characteristics of the 787 Family?
Interested in:

MTOW
Max Pax/Typical 2-class
Range
Fuselage Length
Wingspan
Engine Thrust
Entry into Service dates

Thanks!

here you go..two links which should answer your questions.... Smile

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/787family/programfacts.html

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/787family/specs.html

Quoting Cruiser (Reply 20):
I wonder how significant he means? Based on his comments a week or so ago and these comments, it seems that the A350 will only win if it is significantly cheaper.

This is going to be interesting...

given the large price discrepency between the 787 and A350, the A350 would really need to be cheapened quite a bit....

SNATH · Sat Apr 15, 2006 11:26 am

Quoting Jacobin777 (Thread starter):

Thanks for sharing the interesting information.

Quoting Scorpio (Reply 2):
Kind of surprising to see LH only interested in the 787-10, and not the 787-3. I always thought that was the most likely 787 version for Lufthansa, as a replacement for the A300.

As Atmx2000 and Stitch already said, I would not be surprised if LH replaces their A300s with smaller narrowbodies to increase frequency.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 14):

The 787-10 would be a good replacement for their 29 A343s, allowing LH to add capacity (and range?).

Yes, but if this happens I will be pretty shocked, I have to say. I think this is Airbus' order to lose.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 15):
the 747-8 will provide increase capacity, as well as better economics than the 747-8.....

...and engine commonality with the B787. Wink

Quoting Stirling (Reply 16):
Wait a minute.....
The 747 has never been stretched?

Doesn't the upper deck qualify?

Not taking the stretched upper deck into account, the B747 is indeed the only Boeing type to have been only shrunk and not stretched (unless you consider the B717 a separate type).

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 18):

I agree, I think the 783 was used as the "launch"...but what a springboard it has turned out to be!

The B783 orders have been very slow. Airlines seem to want to stick to one or two B787 subtypes and be prepared to abuse the longer-range ones to do the -3's job instead of introducing another subtype (I think AC even stated as much). Would I be totally of-the-wall if I suggest that Boeing might decide to dump the -3 and concentrate on the -10? Yes, I know that ANA and JAL have ordered it... I'm thinking allowed I suppose...

Quoting Cruiser (Reply 20):
I wonder how significant he means? Based on his comments a week or so ago and these comments, it seems that the A350 will only win if it is significantly cheaper.

I don't know about you, but I read this as "Boeing, give us a good deal on the B787 and we're game."

Tony

jacobin777 · Sat Apr 15, 2006 11:51 am

Quoting SNATH (Reply 22):

Thanks for sharing the interesting information.

your welcome....always glad to help. Smile

Quoting SNATH (Reply 22):

Yes, but if this happens I will be pretty shocked, I have to say. I think this is Airbus' order to lose.

I'm going by the other view, I think its Boeing to lose with LH....but it will be very interesting to see who the winner is on this deal (and it will be a close one).......if Airbus does lose, it will be a blow to them..that being said however, I think AF will probably go via the A350

Quoting SNATH (Reply 22):

The B783 orders have been very slow. Airlines seem to want to stick to one or two B787 subtypes and be prepared to abuse the longer-range ones to do the -3's job instead of introducing another subtype (I think AC even stated as much). Would I be totally of-the-wall if I suggest that Boeing might decide to dump the -3 and concentrate on the -10? Yes, I know that ANA and JAL have ordered it... I'm thinking allowed I suppose...

given that the 787-3 and 787-8 have the same dimensions (fuselage length and x-section), it probably wouldn't be too much of an extra expense for Boeing to keep it, and one never knows, it can very much be the "tipping point" for a carrier....the more of a "family" one can offer (i.e.-wider the variety), the more advantageous it is..

dhefty · Sat Apr 15, 2006 12:02 pm

Quoting Boysteve (Reply 13):
They have a shed full of 747's in storeage and like the B77X

I wasn't aware of this. How many B747's do they have in storage?

Stitch · Sat Apr 15, 2006 12:15 pm

Quoting SNATH (Reply 22):
Yes, but if this happens I will be pretty shocked, I have to say. I think this is Airbus' order to lose.

I thought much the same, considering how many Airbus types LH operates, but LH principals have stated on many occasions they do not intend to become an all-Airbus carrier...

SNATH · Sat Apr 15, 2006 1:10 pm

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 23):
I'm going by the other view, I think its Boeing to lose with LH....but it will be very interesting to see who the winner is on this deal (and it will be a close one).......if Airbus does lose, it will be a blow to them..that being said however, I think AF will probably go via the A350

We'll see! I personally cannot wait to find out how all these orders will turn out!

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 23):
given that the 787-3 and 787-8 have the same dimensions (fuselage length and x-section), it probably wouldn't be too much of an extra expense for Boeing to keep it, and one never knows, it can very much be the "tipping point" for a carrier....the more of a "family" one can offer (i.e.-wider the variety), the more advantageous it is..

I actually thought that the -3 will have a slightly thinner fuselage wall than the -8/-9 to make it a bit lighter (as it needs to carry less fuel, hence it doesn't need to be as strong). This was definitely talked about but I don't know whether Boeing has abandoned that plan. However, if true, it does make the -3 and -8/-9 variants quite different and I assume more studies and tests will need to take place to get them certified.

Tony

jacobin777 · Sat Apr 15, 2006 1:41 pm

Quoting SNATH (Reply 26):
I actually thought that the -3 will have a slightly thinner fuselage wall than the -8/-9 to make it a bit lighter (as it needs to carry less fuel, hence it doesn't need to be as strong). This was definitely talked about but I don't know whether Boeing has abandoned that plan. However, if true, it does make the -3 and -8/-9 variants quite different and I assume more studies and tests will need to take place to get them certified.

true...you might be correct, and I didn't take that into consideration...also...the MTOW of the -3 is about 116,000 less than the 787-8... part of the reason, amongst other things is because the wingspan for the 787-3 is less than the wingspan for the 787-8/9 (which have the same wingspan)...

Quoting SNATH (Reply 26):
We'll see! I personally cannot wait to find out how all these orders will turn out!

I agree!!

SNATH · Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:44 pm

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 27):
part of the reason, amongst other things is because the wingspan for the 787-3 is less than the wingspan for the 787-8/9 (which have the same wingspan)...

The difference in wingspan is most likely due to the different wingtips. "Shark fins" on the -8/-9:

and blended B737-style ones on the -3:

Tony

frugalqxnwa · Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:53 pm

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 27):
part of the reason, amongst other things is because the wingspan for the 787-3 is less than the wingspan for the 787-8/9 (which have the same wingspan)

IIRC the wings are about the most expensive part of the plane other than the engines, so having different wing structures might tip the financial scales in favor of dropping the 787-3. I would not be surprised if the -3 becomes an "also ran" version, but then again I could be wrong.

aaden · Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:03 pm

awsome news for boeing maybe AA would consider the 747-800

Korg747 · Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:14 pm

To me it if LH is looking at the 787-10s that means they are actually looking for a replacment for the A343s like someone said in here. I definitly think Boeing should not waste this chance. Boeing has two airlines that are willing to get up to 100 787-10s. That should be enough to launch the type.

ikramerica · Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:16 pm

Quoting Tifoso (Reply 11):
Is there any other airline that may buy this variant of the 787?

I doubt it. Most other airlines would prefer the flexibility of just flying 788s over the "convenience" of having the 783. Look how even AA used the A300s across the atlantic for a while. But they weren't the best choice for it. And the 788 MTOW doesn't really come from being heavier than the 783, only from being restricted by rating.

The 783 holds 3 more tons of payload than does the 788, has 8 tons lower OEW, holds the same amount of fuel (in theory), but has a 57 ton lower MTOW. This is totally because it suits the Japanese market. The only other market I could see it in is China, but so far, China has only ordered the 788.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 18):
I agree, I think the 783 was used as the "launch"

Exactly. It was used to attract NH and JL only. Boeing saw how they use the 777s and 767s domestically, and had built 747s for their market before, and responded to NH's request for a lighter 787 for domestic ops. Since the airports in Japan charge by MTOW, the 783 has lower MTOW than the 788, so it costs less to land. Further, the engines are derated, so they cost less in maintenance, and the wings are shorter, so 2 783s fit in the space of a 763 and a 772A.

When you consider options, Boeing should deliver 50 of the 783s over time. That should be more than enough to go positive. They delivered fewer 747SR and 744D models.

Quoting SNATH (Reply 28):
The difference in wingspan is most likely due to the different wingtips. "Shark fins" on the -8/-9:

It's entirely due to the wintips. The wings themselves are identical. The wingtip extensions are the variable. Blended winglets vs. longer, but lighterweight raked tips.

jacobin777 · Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:31 pm

Quoting SNATH (Reply 28):
The difference in wingspan is most likely due to the different wingtips. "Shark fins" on the -8/-9:

Quoting SNATH (Reply 28):
and blended B737-style ones on the -3:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 32):

It's entirely due to the wintips. The wings themselves are identical. The wingtip extensions are the variable. Blended winglets vs. longer, but lighterweight raked tips.

we got our answer.. Smile

Quoting Frugalqxnwa (Reply 29):
so having different wing structures might tip the financial scales in favor of dropping the 787-3. I would not be surprised if the -3 becomes an "also ran" version, but then again I could be wrong.

they will probably sell enough frames to more than easily cover cost, not to mention, JL and NH seriously do need them!

Quoting AAden (Reply 30):
awsome news for boeing maybe AA would consider the 747-800

.........don't count on it......if anything, it will be the 777-300ER, but I expect AA to go with the 787-10, as it will offer much better CASM than their 777-200ER, and will allow them to open routes such as ORD-NGO (which ended because they needed 777's and it wasn't making enough money)....and I'm hoping more West Coast-Europe/West Coast-Asia routes.. pray

cheers...

lightsaber · Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:55 pm

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 27):
part of the reason, amongst other things is because the wingspan for the 787-3 is less than the wingspan for the 787-8/9 (which have the same wingspan)...

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 32):
I doubt it. Most other airlines would prefer the flexibility of just flying 788s over the "convenience" of having the 783. Look how even AA used the A300s across the atlantic for a while. But they weren't the best choice for it. And the 788 MTOW doesn't really come from being heavier than the 783, only from being restricted by rating.

My only comment: A 783 fits into a 767's gate. A 788 has just enough added wingspan that it might not.

783 wingspan: 169.7 ft
788 wingspan: 197.3 ft. Yes, almost 30 feet more!!!

http://www.boeing.com/assocproducts/aircompat/787brochure.pdf

The 6,000 lbm difference in empty weight probably won't be a huge decision driver between the 783 and 788. Also, if you look at slide 20, you'll see that for hot/high performance the customers will probably always want the 788.

I also find slide 26 very interesting. How the 787's noise footprint stays within the airport! wideeyed

Wow!

I'll agree with the consensus, the 783 won't be a big seller. I'd bet its resale will be poor too (due to lack of range, the 788's better short runway performance, and relatively few customers who must have the shorter wingspan).

Lightsaber

andessmf · Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:14 pm

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 34):
I'll agree with the consensus, the 783 won't be a big seller. I'd bet its resale will be poor too (due to lack of range, the 788's better short runway performance, and relatively few customers who must have the shorter wingspan).

Sounds like the 'A' market 777. Those are not even in high demand.

N1120A · Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:37 pm

Quoting Jacobin777 (Thread starter):
...."The A350 as it now stands is not without its attractions," he (SQ)said, "particularly if the price advantage over the 787 can be significant enough."

Um, the 787 has a cheaper pricetag than that A350

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 8):
I'm not. The CASM will be great on the 787-10. Besides, when it enters service is about when the earliest 772's are due to exit passanger service anyway. (For the short timeframe replacement airlines.)

Or, in Lufthansa's case, the earliest A343s

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 10):
Maybe the competitive environment makes widebodies for short haul a risk proposition, especially for one that is even bigger than their A300s.

If anything, it is the opposite. LH will never sink to the level or a Ryanair for service quality or employee treatment, so they will have to compete for costs in other ways. One way to do this is to use widebodies on heavy trunk routes in order to keep CASM competitive. Additionally, Lufthansa Cargo is one of the largest cargo carriers in the world, and they carry a significant amount of intraeuropean cargo on their A300s, something no narrowbody can replace

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 17):
Why? I expect AA to replace the A300's with 738's or whatever replaces the MD-80s and not introduce another fleet type. Yes, I understand the carribean benifits from the A300's cargo. But hey, every other route is limiting baggage, why not to the Carribean?

It is not a matter of baggage allowances, it is a matter of being able to uplift what people bring. AA makes a small fortune on excess baggage fees on their A300 routes and as B6 illustrated, there is no substitute for the lift of a widebody on those routes.

Quoting AAden (Reply 30):
awsome news for boeing maybe AA would consider the 747-800

Not a chance in hell.

boysteve · Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:45 pm

Quoting Dhefty (Reply 24):
I wasn't aware of this. How many B747's do they have in storage?

I'm not sure on the numbers. The reason I am convinced they have B747's in storeage is that I have read a dozen or so posts in other threads stating so, as well as in this one;

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 15):
the 747-400's aren't a problem with SQ, they have been fully depreciated

Can someone else help Dhefty and myself please?

ikramerica · Sat Apr 15, 2006 6:37 pm

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 34):
Also, if you look at slide 20, you'll see that for hot/high performance the customers will probably always want the 788.

Exactly. 788 is just more versatile for most situations.

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 34):
783 wingspan: 169.7 ft

That's 764ER wingspan, but the 783 doesn't fit in the same space as a 763. But two 783s fit in the same "double box" as a 763 next to a 772A.

This is the same logic Boeing uses to sell the 748. While it doesn't fit into a 744 box, it does fit into a "double 744 box" next to a 777 or 787, and both planes can reach the jetways, etc.

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 34):
I'd bet its resale will be poor too

No doubt. NH and JL don't care so much about that, as they fly their "D" jets into the ground before retiring them. The last 747SR was retired last month, IIRC. Those 783s will be flying for 20+ years, and resale at the end is not a huge concern.

But for another carrier, it's just one more reason to use the 788 instead.

Quoting Dhefty (Reply 24):
How many B747's do they have in storage?

2.

They have 27 jets, 25 operating, 2 withdrawn from service. Those are old 744s, not withdrawn because they don't like 747s, just because they are old.

So it doesn't point to a trend that they wouldn't want more 747s in the future.

Now, the 10/15 A380s they have on order/option might point more to the retiring of the 747 fleet that they had planned. 25 744s, 25 deposits on A380s. That's pretty simple math.

But I don't think they are going to commit to that until the A380s come into service and they see how they work. So you might see SIA wait on the 748i until next year, to see how the A380 works. Though they will likely order 748Fs this year.

I could see them order 748Fs this year and place options for 747-8 of non-specific type as a hedge.

columba · Sat Apr 15, 2006 6:41 pm

Quoting Tifoso (Reply 11):
Damn, no 783s then.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 14):
I guess LH has decided greater frequency with large narrowbodies like the A321 makes more sense for them.

Quoting Korg747 (Reply 31):
To me it if LH is looking at the 787-10s that means they are actually looking for a replacment for the A343s like someone said in here

Lufthansa is indeed looking only at a replacement for their longhaul fleet mainly their A340-300s and 747-400s. This part of the order never included their short and medium haul fleet. Therefore the options for this part of the fleet renewal plan only consisted of larger variants of the A350 and the 787-9/-10.
Lufthansa chairman Mayrhuber did say that already a year ago.
The 787-8 would always been to small for being a A340-300 replacement. This does not mean that the 787-8 has no future at all with Lufthansa. It will be a good alternative for Condor to replace their 767-300s and for Swiss to offer longhaul flights from ZRH which does not justify larger aircrafts.
Even later with LH if they plan to offer more direct flights from smaller airports in their network such as Berlin and Hamburg - I am still hoping Wink

!!
Regarding the 787-3 I would not rule it out completely, it also would be a good plane for Condor to replace their 757-300s with or the 757-300 would go without a real replacement and being replaced with more A320s and maybe A321s.
For Lufthansa main line I would say the 787-3 has a fair chance being considered again when they will place an order regarding their European fleet which consists of A300s/A32xs and 737s.
The A300 is not part of the longhaul fleet that is taken care of now. If they choose the 787 over the A350 - the 787-3 still has a chance but not as a sole aircraft within the fleet.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 36):
Additionally, Lufthansa Cargo is one of the largest cargo carriers in the world, and they carry a significant amount of intraeuropean cargo on their A300s, something no narrowbody can replace

This is a point that also must be considered.

N1120A · Sat Apr 15, 2006 6:48 pm

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 38):
Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 34):
783 wingspan: 169.7 ft

That's 764ER wingspan, but the 783 doesn't fit in the same space as a 763. But two 783s fit in the same "double box" as a 763 next to a 772A.

The 783's wingspan is 170 feet even, which is actually shorter than the 764ER's 170'4" wingspan.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 38):
They have 27 jets, 25 operating, 2 withdrawn from service. Those are old 744s, not withdrawn because they don't like 747s, just because they are old.

SQ doesn't benefit all that much from flying planes for the same amount of time as most carriers. Because of Singapore's very relaxed depreciation laws, they can dump planes a lot earlier, since there is no more financial advantage to keeping them, other than a bit of cap ex.

zvezda · Sat Apr 15, 2006 7:04 pm

Quoting AAden (Reply 30):
maybe AA would consider the 747-800

I don't see any chance for the SuperJumbo at AA. I doubt AA would order anything larger than the B787-10.

Quoting Boysteve (Reply 13):
[SQ] have a shed full of 747's in storeage

All my sources refute that.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 38):
[SQ] have 27 jets, 25 operating, 2 withdrawn from service. Those are old 744s, not withdrawn because they don't like 747s, just because they are old.

Which 2? As far as I know, there are still 27 operating. However, a few have been sold with short-term lease-backs. SQ are trying to keep several JumboJets operating longer than planned before turning them over to the buyers.

Airmansv · Sat Apr 15, 2006 9:10 pm

Cannot believe the naivity amongst the knowledgeable readers. 787 whatever form it takes is a paper design today , yet to prove itself, yet to get even 60 minutes ETOPS etc etc.....it has a long way to go before it even becomes a reality and proves itself....2015 perhaps before it gets 180 mins ETOPS...

zvezda · Sat Apr 15, 2006 9:13 pm

Quoting Airmansv (Reply 42):
Cannot believe the naivity amongst the knowledgeable readers. 787 whatever form it takes is a paper design today , yet to prove itself, yet to get even 60 minutes ETOPS etc etc.....it has a long way to go before it even becomes a reality and proves itself....2015 perhaps before it gets 180 mins ETOPS...

Since you bring up naive, there is about a 99% chance that the B787 will enter service with ETOPS180, just as the B777 did.

norcal · Sat Apr 15, 2006 9:23 pm

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 43):
Since you bring up naive, there is about a 99% chance that the B787 will enter service with ETOPS180, just as the B777 did.

I thought they were shooting for ETOPS 330? It isn't legally approved yet to operate routes under ETOPS 330, but they could at least have the airframe and engines capable of doing it when it does become approved.

jacobin777 · Sun Apr 16, 2006 12:56 am

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 34):
My only comment: A 783 fits into a 767's gate. A 788 has just enough added wingspan that it might not.

783 wingspan: 169.7 ft
788 wingspan: 197.3 ft. Yes, almost 30 feet more!!!

Its quite a bit, but I don't think that should be too much of a problem for operators, considering the 777 has a larger wingspan, I really haven't heard too much of a problem on that end....but you point is noted...!

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 34):
The 6,000 lbm difference in empty weight probably won't be a huge decision driver between the 783 and 788. Also, if you look at slide 20, you'll see that for hot/high performance the customers will probably always want the 788.

thanks for the link.......I appreciate it.

....the 783 has an advantage over the 788 in that 1)carriers much more pax 2) MTOW is 113 less

Quoting N1120A (Reply 36):

Um, the 787 has a cheaper pricetag than that A350

Um...yes...we know.

[Edited 2006-04-15 17:58:16]

lightsaber · Sun Apr 16, 2006 12:57 am

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 35):
Sounds like the 'A' market 777. Those are not even in high demand.

Nice Analogy! I think it fits.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 36):
It is not a matter of baggage allowances, it is a matter of being able to uplift what people bring. AA makes a small fortune on excess baggage fees on their A300 routes and as B6 illustrated, there is no substitute for the lift of a widebody on those routes.

Good point. Is that enough for AA to go with the 783? In my opinion no. "Abuse" 788's on the routes? Sure! But the lessons we're learning is keep to fleet commonality. Thus if there is a low season and the 738 can do the route that month... either service the 788 or seasonally throw it on a longer route. bigthumbsup

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 38):
But for another carrier, it's just one more reason to use the 788 instead.

***warning, entering rumor zone***
Now with the 748... I'm hearing rumors on some good stuff with the freighter and possibly an easier conversion from Pax to freight intentionally designed in. We're even getting feedback that the larger top could be ordered on the freighter as an option. wideeyed

If I hadn't sat through a presentation on it, I wouldn't have believed it for a second... Note: I do not know if this is due to Boeing offering a passenger length 748F?!? What would that be, the 748IF??? Ok, this is rumor with one Catia powerpoint slide; it probably means nothing.

****Exiting rumor zone into speculation zone ***
Now, what I wonder is will Boeing, in an attempt to improve 748I resale make it so that the nose door could be a retrofit? Any one hear anything?
****returning to your normal a.net program ***

Lightsaber

ikramerica · Sun Apr 16, 2006 1:23 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 40):
The 783's wingspan is 170 feet even, which is actually shorter than the 764ER's 170'4" wingspan.

and you have a point here? A, it's not 170 feet even, and B, it doesn't fit into the 763 boxes NH and JL have, because last time I checked, they don't fly 764s. They fly 763s and 772/3As domestically. So it can't park in the same spots as 767s unless those spots have extra room at the wingtips, which isn't going to be true at every airport and every gate they use.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 41):
As far as I know, there are still 27 operating.

SIA says they have 27 in the fleet, including 2 non-operating.

http://www.singaporeair.com/saa/en_U...nt/company_info/siastory/fleet.jsp

N328KF · Sun Apr 16, 2006 1:28 am

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 45):
....the 783 has an advantage over the 788 in that 1)carriers much more pax 2) MTOW is 113 less

The 787-3 only carries more passengers because it is intended to be used in a two-class layout, whereas the 787-8 is intended to be used in a three-class layout. You could do the interior layout identically if you chose.

YULWinterSkies · Sun Apr 16, 2006 1:36 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 14):
The 787-10 would be a good replacement for their 29 A343s

Quoting Stitch (Reply 14):
Not being interested in the 787-8 means their 10 A330s are going to be sticking around for awhile

LH's 330s are 333s, so they have the exact same capacity as their 343s, so they need the same type of aircraft if they want to replace them 1 by 1, without capacity re-adjustments. Whichever 787 fits the best for the 343 replacement will also be the best for the 333.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net