Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
ljupco
Topic Author
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 11:03 am

Why No Boeing Full Double-decker Super Jumbo

Mon Nov 28, 2011 4:00 pm

A very similar article found on a.net Why No Double Decker From Boeing? (by 7E72004 Oct 22 2004 in Civil Aviation) from 2004 but 7 years forward it is still hot question.
Many other articles going thru my head, read and read all those years, but still I need you fellows.

Why Boeing decided to improve their B744 and develop into B748 instead of designing a direct competitor to A380?! It’s quite obvious that B744 has a great reputation for its perfect almost 40 years of service, and for marketing perspective it’s a golden chicken. Design and production a new model is a huge bunch of money, but letting the competitor alone on the market seemed a little unaffordable.

I know Boeing invest enormous business and engineering force, financially exhausted for B787 and maybe that’s why they let to not having such a super jumbo program, concentrating in improvements in their well-known model 744.

Finally, might be Boeing market analytics people concluded that this time and decades coming market is not prepared to consume enough aircraft frames to make a super jumbo program profitable. A380 still goes in risk, with headaches reaching firm orders limit to accomplish profitable A380 program.

At the end, I’m pretty sure there is a much more behind the scene.


regards!
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 12102
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

RE: Why No Boeing Full Double-decker Super Jumbo

Mon Nov 28, 2011 4:09 pm

Quoting ljupco (Thread starter):
Finally, might be Boeing market analytics people concluded that this time and decades coming market is not prepared to consume enough aircraft frames to make a super jumbo program profitable. A380 still goes in risk, with headaches reaching firm orders limit to accomplish profitable A380 program.

That is why. 11 years after the A380 was launched it only has ~250 firm orders. Now imagine how many there would be if Airbus had to split the market with a direct Boeing competitor.

The jury is still out whether the superjumbo market will be profitable or not with only 1 entry; it certainly wouldn't be if there were 2.
 
KarlB737
Posts: 2948
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 9:51 pm

RE: Why No Boeing Full Double-decker Super Jumbo

Mon Nov 28, 2011 4:17 pm

Quoting ljupco (Thread starter):
Why Boeing decided to improve their B744 and develop into B748 instead of designing a direct competitor to A380?!

What US airlines would buy it?

What US airlines even need it.

The expense for airports to handle an aircraft that big.

Will this be a side issue:

Can the pilots see a regional jet from the cockpit? Remember the one at JFK that got twisted around.
 
ljupco
Topic Author
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 11:03 am

RE: Why No Boeing Full Double-decker Super Jumbo

Mon Nov 28, 2011 4:24 pm

Quoting polot (Reply 1):
That is why. 11 years after the A380 was launched it only has ~250 firm orders. Now imagine how many there would be if Airbus had to split the market with a direct Boeing competitor.

The jury is still out whether the superjumbo market will be profitable or not with only 1 entry; it certainly wouldn't be if there were 2.

But I wonder why Boeing, an established leader at the time when A380 has the its sprout 15 years ago, even more, If they had parameters and knew that just one can win, let A380 to do it.

At that particular time they had just fished their B777 program and seemed (time proof that) it would be one of the most successful wide-body aircraft. Did they felt comfortable with it; meaning having one perfect 300 to 400 seats a/c and one perfect 200-300 seats perfect a/c (B787), even in decade backward b787 was just a peace of paper.
 
Independence76
Posts: 417
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 9:59 pm

RE: Why No Boeing Full Double-decker Super Jumbo

Mon Nov 28, 2011 4:24 pm

What I'm curious to know is why previously announced double-decker airliners were not well received in the 1990's.

Boeing had the NLA, McDonnell Douglas had the MD-12, and Airbus was just announcing the A380 (A3XX at the time). The idea of double-deckers seemed to be what a lot of other people were anticipating as the next big thing, but only the Airbus seemed to get enough attention to last to reality.

I'm also interested in why the proposed 747-400X, -500X, and -600X were not popular with airlines. The 747-400 was a proven base model that could easily have been implemented into fleets without major training adjustments (for airlines without Airbuses at the time). The 747X proposition seemed to be a rather attractive alternative to full double-decker aircraft.

Can anyone clear up the specifics on this matter?
 
chieft
Posts: 326
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 11:35 pm

RE: Why No Boeing Full Double-decker Super Jumbo

Mon Nov 28, 2011 4:31 pm

Well, trunk routes in high density config - that could release airlines on some legs from slot restrictions and the per seat costs could be sensational. But that counts also for the A380.

I belive, that some Asian carriers could be interested - the ones which don't want Airbus for some reasons...
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 12102
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

RE: Why No Boeing Full Double-decker Super Jumbo

Mon Nov 28, 2011 4:39 pm

Quoting ljupco (Reply 3):

But I wonder why Boeing, an established leader at the time when A380 has the its sprout 15 years ago, even more, If they had parameters and knew that just one can win, let A380 to do it.

But Boeing believed that no one could "win" the market. They believed (possibly still believe) that the market was just too small to spend all that money on a new aircraft. They let Airbus do it because they think that Airbus is not going to make money off the A380 program.

Quoting Independence76 (Reply 4):
Boeing had the NLA, McDonnell Douglas had the MD-12, and Airbus was just announcing the A380 (A3XX at the time). The idea of double-deckers seemed to be what a lot of other people were anticipating as the next big thing, but only the Airbus seemed to get enough attention to last to reality.

MD went bust, Boeing decided the market wasn't big enough to cover the costs, and Airbus decided to pulled the trigger.

Quoting Independence76 (Reply 4):
I'm also interested in why the proposed 747-400X, -500X, and -600X were not popular with airlines. The 747-400 was a proven base model that could easily have been implemented into fleets without major training adjustments (for airlines without Airbuses at the time). The 747X proposition seemed to be a rather attractive alternative to full double-decker aircraft.

The proposed 747 variants did get some traction from the market (in fact I think Boeing got a MOU or two), but most of the interest was from Asian carriers. When the Asian Financial Crisis hit in the late 90s, interest immediately waned and the proposals were dropped.
 
Eagleboy
Posts: 1876
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 2:29 am

RE: Why No Boeing Full Double-decker Super Jumbo

Mon Nov 28, 2011 4:41 pm

I was under the impression that Boeing predicted a change in market structure away from large hubs (needing VLA's) and more towards smaller aircraft (B7E7 which became the B787) flying point to point
 
Sancho99504
Posts: 753
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 2:44 pm

RE: Why No Boeing Full Double-decker Super Jumbo

Mon Nov 28, 2011 5:01 pm

I think Boeing made a decision that is both right and wrong. The right, is developing the B748i has not cost very much on the R&D side as the B748F has absorbed the brunt of the R&D costs. However, 2020 and beyond, there will be a market for A388/9 sized aircraft and Boeing will have missed the boat with their conservative approach. While people are talking global recession, I for one am not seeing it. We're still seeing high demand, growth, and sooner or later, as the middle class in India, China, Russia, and a host of other countires continue to develope and grow, we will see a market that will require between 500-700 VLA's. I don't see why a lot of people call A380 and B748i a failure when the market for these aircraft is not even in its prime or maturity? The market is expected to grow dramatically from 2020.......
 
MCIGuy
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 8:15 am

RE: Why No Boeing Full Double-decker Super Jumbo

Mon Nov 28, 2011 5:46 pm

The Boeing NLA:

Boeing NLA Concept
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27645
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Why No Boeing Full Double-decker Super Jumbo

Mon Nov 28, 2011 6:09 pm

Quoting Independence76 (Reply 4):
I'm also interested in why the proposed 747-400X, -500X, and -600X were not popular with airlines.

The 747-500X and 747-600X had MoUs/LoIs from MH, TG and BA for use on flights to Asia. However, the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis killed those deals and ended any chance of additional deals from other carriers. With Boeing estimating the costs for those two models as north of $10 billion (in 1996 dollars), they could not justify the risk.

And, effectively, that is why the never launched their own VLA - they could not justify the risk.
 
bringiton
Posts: 763
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:24 am

RE: Why No Boeing Full Double-decker Super Jumbo

Mon Nov 28, 2011 6:28 pm

Boeing does not think the VLA market is large enough (both currently and into the future) for 2 players to exist with 2 brand new "clean sheet" products. Airbus launched the 380 in 2000 , so in 11 years they have sold 243 odd units, and Boeing launched the 748 in 2005 and have 106 sales. This only validates Boeing's strategy to go for the 748 instead of a clean sheet design , given airbus was first with the 380. Having said that , due to cost increase and delays , penalty's etc , airbus has ended up spending a lot more then they planned pushing the break even point to beyond 400 units (according to analysts) , and Boeing has also suffered delays and cost increase.

Quoting sancho99504 (Reply 8):
However, 2020 and beyond, there will be a market for A388/9 sized aircraft and Boeing will have missed the boat with their conservative approach.

Both Boeing and Airbus would have sold a heck of a lot of 330's,777's,787's and 350's within that time frame to more then justify their financial prioritization. Due to the fact that a heck of a lot of 330's have been sold in the last 6-8 years (and are expected to be sold in the coming years) we will see excellent sales for 787's and 350's (due to 777 sales) well into the next decade and beyond. Boeing hedged that the long haul widebody market has fragmented to twins , and point to point will get priority (from airlines) and if 330.787.350,777 sales are any indicator , they have been more then vindicated.

Having said that , There will definitely be demand for VLA's , particularly in Asia , there still isnt conclusive evidence to justify Boeing spending 15-20 billion dollars in the 2003-2005 timeframe for "projected" demand in the 2020+ decade. They have the Y3 which they plan to offer the industry and they can always push it out to make it more competitive against 388 and 389 ...Yet growing evidence shows that Long haul travel is going towards aircrafts like the 777,330,350,787 etc given how much faith the airlines have put in them.
 
rjm777ual
Posts: 237
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 11:32 pm

RE: Why No Boeing Full Double-decker Super Jumbo

Mon Nov 28, 2011 9:41 pm

There were some McDonnell Douglas plans for an md-12

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_MD-12
 
Tdan
Posts: 528
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 9:36 pm

RE: Why No Boeing Full Double-decker Super Jumbo

Mon Nov 28, 2011 9:57 pm

Airbus bet that growth would be through increases in gauge whereas Boeing bet that it would be through point to point fragmentation. This philosophy determined each of their next product offerings, the A380 and 787 respectively. The A380 was and still is a tremendously negative NPV project given the immense development costs of the program. However, Airbus justified this with the thought that the technological innovations and R&D required for the A380 project will spill over to other new aircraft. Airbus also did not have a product on the shelf capable of competing with the 747 family.

Boeing, on the other hand, doesn't need a full double-decker aircraft when it can make minor modifications to the 747 and still compete with the A380. The need for a differentiated product between 450 and 550 seats is negligible. Only singular hub focused airlines will ever need a fleet of VLAs unless airport infrastructure fails to continue to develop with demand. Airline economics 101 teaches you that frequency is more valued than increased gauge given an open operating environment. Just see CX's JFK-HKG expansion and the countless RJs around the US.

BTW, first post  
 
cuban8
Posts: 256
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 7:17 pm

RE: Why No Boeing Full Double-decker Super Jumbo

Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:29 pm

Quoting Tdan (Reply 13):
Airbus also did not have a product on the shelf capable of competing with the 747 family.

And this is probably the main reason why Airbus went with the project while Boeing focused on other models. Now both manufactures has competing aircraft's for pretty much similar kinds of missions.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27645
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Why No Boeing Full Double-decker Super Jumbo

Mon Nov 28, 2011 11:16 pm

Quoting Tdan (Reply 13):
Airbus also did not have a product on the shelf capable of competing with the 747 family.

The A340-600 was a pretty decent competitor to the 747-400 where total passenger capacity was not the primary driver. It carried more payload (by weight and volume) and burned a significantly lower amount of fuel per trip than the 747-400.

Unfortunately for Airbus, the 777-300ER was a pretty decent competitor to the A340-600.  
 
Tdan
Posts: 528
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 9:36 pm

RE: Why No Boeing Full Double-decker Super Jumbo

Mon Nov 28, 2011 11:34 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 15):
The A340-600 was a pretty decent competitor to the 747-400 where total passenger capacity was not the primary driver. It carried more payload (by weight and volume) and burned a significantly lower amount of fuel per trip than the 747-400.

Unfortunately for Airbus, the 777-300ER was a pretty decent competitor to the A340-600.

Totally agree, but like you said, the A346 competed effectively where total passenger capacity was not the primary driver. Airbus wanted a plane that could compete on capacity and not let Boeing have it all to itself. Flaw in the logic here is that most airlines did not buy the 744 for the capacity, but rather for the range and hence the large-scale trend of 77Ws replacing 744s. If not for EK, the A380 would have really been a white elephant (or more appropriately a beluga since it's the whale-jet?)

I really wish the A380F would have survived, but without a front loading capability, it was dead in the water
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27645
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Why No Boeing Full Double-decker Super Jumbo

Tue Nov 29, 2011 12:30 am

Quoting Tdan (Reply 16):
Airbus wanted a plane that could compete on capacity and not let Boeing have it all to itself. Flaw in the logic here is that most airlines did not buy the 744 for the capacity, but rather for the range...

I think the 747-400 sold well on capacity as well as range. Let us not forget that the 777-200ER could fly about 10% farther fully-loaded and both the MD-11 and A340-300 were within about 5%.
 
User avatar
hOMSaR
Moderator
Posts: 2387
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 4:47 am

RE: Why No Boeing Full Double-decker Super Jumbo

Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:28 am

My memory is a bit rusty on the stillborn 747 variants.

Anyone know offhand how the 747-8 compares to Boeing's proposed 747-500X and -600X (there might have even been a -700X, not sure) from the mid 1990s, and the 747-X from the early 2000s? I'm thinking in terms of range and capacity.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27645
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Why No Boeing Full Double-decker Super Jumbo

Tue Nov 29, 2011 2:22 am

Quoting hOmSaR (Reply 18):
Anyone know offhand how the 747-8 compares to Boeing's proposed 747-500X and -600X (there might have even been a -700X, not sure) from the mid 1990s, and the 747-X from the early 2000s?

In many ways, the 747-8 is the 747-500X.

Boeing 747-8I and Boeing 747-500X


747-500X Length: 255.6ft / 77.85m
747-500X Wingspan: 255ft / 77.72m
747-500X MTOW: 1,188,000lbs / 538,877kg
8,700nm range - 456 pax

747-8 Length: 250.2ft / 76.3m
747-8 Wingspan: 224.7ft / 68.5m
747-8 MTOW: 975,000lbs / 442,250kg
8000nm range - 467 pax


The 747-600X was a good bit longer, trading capacity for range.

747-600X Length: 278.9ft / 85.01m
747-600X Wingspan: 255ft / 77.72m
747-600X MTOW: 1,200,000lbs / 544,320kg
7,700nm range - 550 pax


The 747-700X would have been the 747-600X with a 1.5m (5ft) wider main deck (25ft / 7.6m compared to 20ft / 6.1m for all other 747 models).

747-700X Length: 278.9ft / 85.01m
747-700X Wingspan: 255ft / 77.72m
747-700X MTOW: ≥1,200,000lbs / 544,320kg
747-700X MLW: ≥845,000lbs / 383,292kg
7,250nm range - 650 pax
 
2travel2know2
Posts: 3041
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 3:01 pm

RE: Why No Boeing Full Double-decker Super Jumbo

Tue Nov 29, 2011 2:37 am

The B747-400 upper deck is longer than the original B747-100, so any increase in seating capacity would come from an extended upper deck, then question is: How longer could Boeing have extended the B747 upper deck without that much of a huge re-design investment and compromise the baggage capacity?
It was mentioned on these forums some B747 have(had) lower deck seats, so if there was a need to increase passenger capacity, not only the upper deck could be extended but some of the lower deck could be used to.
 
CXfirst
Posts: 3022
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 8:13 pm

RE: Why No Boeing Full Double-decker Super Jumbo

Tue Nov 29, 2011 2:40 am

Although Airbus has the whole 500+ seats market, one could argue that Boeing has the whole 400-500 seat market where the 748 is. Yet, both of them are having trouble getting many orders. So, I believe it is best for both of them to cover their part of the large aircraft market, and compete in the smaller aircraft market A350v787 and A320v737.

Airbus might have a monopoly on the large aircraft market, but this isn't causing overpricing as many monopolies do, as it is a monopoly created by lack of market demand rather than high barriers of entry (well for Boeing anyway).

-CXfirst
 
CXB77L
Posts: 2613
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:18 pm

RE: Why No Boeing Full Double-decker Super Jumbo

Tue Nov 29, 2011 3:23 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 19):
The 747-700X would have been the 747-600X with a 1.5m (5ft) wider main deck (25ft / 7.6m compared to 20ft / 6.1m for all other 747 models).

Interesting. How did they propose to do that without redesigning the fuselage?

Quoting 2travel2know2 (Reply 20):
How longer could Boeing have extended the B747 upper deck without that much of a huge
re-design investment and compromise the baggage capacity?

I'm not sure how correct this is, but I read somewhere that when they created the 747SP, they found out by accident that there was an aerodynamic advantage to having the upper deck "hump" terminate over the wing rather than at its leading edge. As a result, Boeing introduced the Stretched Upper Deck option on the -100 and -200. With the stretched fuselage of the -8, Boeing correspondingly stretched the upper deck so it too will terminate at the same point relative to the wing. So how far Boeing can stretch the upper deck is dependant on where the wings are.

Perhaps someone who knows (a lot) more about this can confirm.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27645
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Why No Boeing Full Double-decker Super Jumbo

Tue Nov 29, 2011 3:30 am

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 22):
Interesting. How did they propose to do that without redesigning the fuselage?

They would have designed a new, fatter fuselage.

Plan View of the Boeing 747-700X
 
MoltenRock
Posts: 1030
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 11:35 pm

RE: Why No Boeing Full Double-decker Super Jumbo

Tue Nov 29, 2011 3:36 am

SInce Boeing has been taken over by the extremely conservative, and less than technical minded, management of McDoug, a competitor to the A380 was never going to come about. Instead, Boeing's new management decided they wanted to do an "easy" stretch of the 744, and didn't realize just how badly the program could be botched. Not to mention the absolute naïveté Boeing showed in their terribly managed 787 program. Boeing made so many promises, and yet met so little of them, which is sad. I do look forward the 787 once one of my Asian airlines begin to fly it regularly. I'm sure it will be a great step up. That said, it will not be, nor ever will be, the "game changer" former Boeing managers, now fired, stated back in the day.

[Edited 2011-11-28 19:37:01]
 
YULWinterSkies
Posts: 1267
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 11:42 pm

RE: Why No Boeing Full Double-decker Super Jumbo

Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:05 am

Quoting ljupco (Thread starter):
Why Boeing decided to improve their B744 and develop into B748 instead of designing a direct competitor to A380?!

Because they thought it would be smarter to be an indirect competitor and to go fill the gap between the A346/77W and A380 rather than duplicating the A380, which already has a limited market in size. Also, it was less expensive to do a modernized 747-400 than a fully new aircraft, for a market which is lucrative and important but, I reiterate, also limited in size.
I know I'm going against a majority of fans here who would have hoped for something bigger for Boeing, but It turned out to be the right decision imo, as delays were none to minimal, it almost came out before the 787, and has already been delivered to more customers (as cargo) than the 787 has... Orders are still few, but development costs were not that huge when compared to the A380 or 787. It was a nice convenient way to give a little more life to an otherwise dying but nonetheless beautiful and legendary 747. I'd totally buy it any day over an A380 for my personal jet if I could afford it.   

Quoting KarlB737 (Reply 2):
What US airlines would buy it?

What US airlines even need it.

It does not really matter. How many 77W are in service in the US right now? Only recently AA took order for a few. Yet, it has been an extremely successful aircraft worldwide with customers on every continent.
 
windowflyer
Posts: 77
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 7:46 am

RE: Why No Boeing Full Double-decker Super Jumbo

Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:32 am

Me thinks MoltenRock needs to cool off and come back when he's igneous.   
 
bringiton
Posts: 763
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:24 am

RE: Why No Boeing Full Double-decker Super Jumbo

Tue Nov 29, 2011 8:02 am

Quoting MoltenRock (Reply 24):
SInce Boeing has been taken over by the extremely conservative, and less than technical minded, management of McDoug, a competitor to the A380 was never going to come about. Instead, Boeing's new management decided they wanted to do an "easy" stretch of the 744, and didn't realize just how badly the program could be botched. Not to mention the absolute naïveté Boeing showed in their terribly managed 787 program. Boeing made so many promises, and yet met so little of them, which is sad. I do look forward the 787 once one of my Asian airlines begin to fly it regularly. I'm sure it will be a great step up. That said, it will not be, nor ever will be, the "game changer" former Boeing managers, now fired, stated back in the day.

Boeing went for the 787 , in hindsight it was the CORRECT descision given what sales we have seen. They screwed up on the dream liner execution (ROYALLY) , so did AIRBUS with the A380 so much so that many analysts believe that break even point has doubled to 400 plus. On Hind sight both marketing departments overpromised and under delivered when it came to the 787 and 380 product and both are equally to be blamed. However the descision to go for the 787 rather then the sonic cruiser or a brand new VLA is more then vindicated given the sheer number of twin wide bodies ordered in the current decade and are expected to be ordered in the comming decades. Boeing had a weakness when competing with the 330 and expected that market segement to be high demand for years to come , therefore they attacked that market and well more then vindicated there decision.
 
bringiton
Posts: 763
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:24 am

RE: Why No Boeing Full Double-decker Super Jumbo

Tue Nov 29, 2011 9:29 am

Quoting MoltenRock (Reply 24):
Instead, Boeing's new management decided they wanted to do an "easy" stretch of the 744

Boeing prioritized their R and D investments towards the sonic cruiser ---> 7e7--->787 family . The 748 was a sensible move because all of Boeing's internal research suggested a market of about 500-600 airframes in the VLA segment . It is not un-reasonable to expect Boeing to believe in their own market research , therefore they did the right think offer a less expensive upgrade to the 748 given that Airbus had all ready started development of the 380 and boeing committed to the sonic cruiser ----> 7E7 path. It would have been a financial suicide (on hindsight) for Boeing to compete with the 380 with a clean sheet design , given the VLA sales between 2000-2011 , and expected sales between 2010-2020.. Beyond 2020 boeing allready had plans for the Y3 which although smaller and a twin will compete with the A380 as far as long haul widebody market is concerned. The 748 is a stop gap for more then anything else and fills the gap between 2005 to around 2025 when it will be offered. Boeing expects around a 600 sized market between 2007-2020 (iirc) and expects to take around 200-250 of that (iirc) ... Thats around 35-40% of the market share, and very high share of the Freight market. Beyond 2020-2025 Boeing always planned to offer the Y3 , therefore it was pointless to radically alter the 747 family to seek sales between 2005-2020/25...Given that information and market constraints it was a wise decision. Airbus on the other hand expects 1200+ air frame demand for the VLA family , and they stuck to their own research as is expected. With time we will see which figure was more correct. Both 748 and 380 suffered huge delays , and losses .While Boeing has not done well developing the 787 and 748 families (execution) , airbus has also royally screwed up with the 380.. The 350 is still not beyond the critical state so we would have to see how smooth (or otherwise) its development goes.
 
scouseflyer
Posts: 2193
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 7:02 pm

RE: Why No Boeing Full Double-decker Super Jumbo

Tue Nov 29, 2011 10:14 am

Something that is rarely mentioned, and I heard Charles Chmapion saying, is that Airbus couldn't really compete with Boeing without having a full range of planes from NB to VLA.

I.e. if the A346 had been the biggest plane that they made, B could of done the 748 and had a cash cow on their hands - if they'd got a third of the A380 pax sales that's an extra 80 odd sales at a better margin than currently due to the lack of competition.

Would of loved to see the monster 746 and 747 
 
bringiton
Posts: 763
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:24 am

RE: Why No Boeing Full Double-decker Super Jumbo

Tue Nov 29, 2011 10:23 am

Quoting scouseflyer (Reply 29):
Something that is rarely mentioned, and I heard Charles Chmapion saying, is that Airbus couldn't really compete with Boeing without having a full range of planes from NB to VLA.

I.e. if the A346 had been the biggest plane that they made, B could of done the 748 and had a cash cow on their hands - if they'd got a third of the A380 pax sales that's an extra 80 odd sales at a better margin than currently due to the lack of competition.

Would of loved to see the monster 746 and 747

In another words , what is paramount for both Airbus and Boeing , is not to have every product better then the other and compete like two crazy warriors , but to have a strong portfolio of jetliners throughout the size segments. Had airbus not gone in for the 380 i still believe that Boeing would have gone in for the 7E7 and relied upon their own market research to advance their widebody twin interests. A380 due to its effeceincy and low CASM has created a lot of the "sales" for capacity hungry airlines who really need that aircraft , maybe the 748 would not have been chosen by them in the same numbers. I agree to the point that Airbus needed the 380 to challenge Boeing's monopoly in the VLA sector , however what i find extremly worrying is that there is a chance that both boeing as well as airbus do not make any money off of the 748 and the 380 given the delays and penalties. Airbus would still be required to spend further ammount of cash to develop the 388F and 389 , and they need 450 odd sales to break even (according to reports) .. Boeing likely needs more F varient sales in the comming 8-10 years to see itself in the green...
 
Nicoeddf
Posts: 1090
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:13 am

RE: Why No Boeing Full Double-decker Super Jumbo

Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:46 pm

Quoting KarlB737 (Reply 2):
Can the pilots see a regional jet from the cockpit? Remember the one at JFK that got twisted around.

Yeah, I guess that is one of the main drivers. Because pilots can't see regional jets from the cockpit. Well...
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27645
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Why No Boeing Full Double-decker Super Jumbo

Tue Nov 29, 2011 3:06 pm

Quoting MoltenRock (Reply 24):
SInce Boeing has been taken over by the extremely conservative, and less than technical minded, management of McDoug, a competitor to the A380 was never going to come about.

Well MD was the company that was looking into a double-decker (the MD-12), but they could not begin to afford it. Also royally c**king-up the MD-11 didn't help set positive customer expectations. When they merged with Boeing, they had the resources to possibly pursue it (and so the MD-12 became the Boeing NLA), but such a program could have pushed towards 20 billion USD and would have been in head-to-head competition with the A3XX, which Airbus was preparing for ATO. *



Quoting MoltenRock (Reply 24):
Instead, Boeing's new management decided they wanted to do an "easy" stretch of the 744, and didn't realize just how badly the program could be botched.

Well if they had, they never would have launched it, would they?

Boeing expected the 747-8 to be pretty much a two-plug fuselage stretch and a version of the bleed-air GEnx engines being developed for the (original) A350. It was only once they went into detailed design work did they realize they had to re-profile the wing to work with those new engines. And then once they went into flight test, that new re-profiled wing needed modifications to the gear doors for low-speed operations and at higher speeds and weights generated flutter that required adding FBW to some of the control surfaces to counteract.

The 747-8 was also starved for engineering resources, as Boeing engineers at Everett were pulled to work on the 787. This required contract engineers to be flown in from Japan and brought up to speed. It also meant the Moscow Design Center had to perform more work and from what I have heard and read, those folks evidently design to Soviet-era tolerances, meaning the parts they were developing were much heavier than Boeing planned and required a fair bit of re-work by US and Japanese engineers. All of that meant the design process took significantly longer than planned, which pushed back the EIS. Add in the flight-test modifications, and the program ended up delivering in Q3 2011 as opposed to the original plan of Q3 2009.

[Edited 2011-11-29 07:12:37]
 
AirbusA6
Posts: 1658
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 5:53 am

RE: Why No Boeing Full Double-decker Super Jumbo

Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:43 pm

Quoting bringiton (Reply 30):
Something that is rarely mentioned, and I heard Charles Chmapion saying, is that Airbus couldn't really compete with Boeing without having a full range of planes from NB to VLA.

I.e. if the A346 had been the biggest plane that they made, B could of done the 748 and had a cash cow on their hands - if they'd got a third of the A380 pax sales that's an extra 80 odd sales at a better margin than currently due to the lack of competition.

Would of loved to see the monster 746 and 747

True, it was said that Boeing made a fortune on 747 sales, which helped them compete harder on smaller planes. Now, neither are probably making much money on their VLAs 

That stretched, fatter is 747-700 is hideous, thank god they never built it!
 
User avatar
huaiwei
Posts: 359
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 4:36 am

RE: Why No Boeing Full Double-decker Super Jumbo

Tue Nov 29, 2011 7:46 pm

Quoting polot (Reply 1):

That is why. 11 years after the A380 was launched it only has ~250 firm orders. Now imagine how many there would be if Airbus had to split the market with a direct Boeing competitor.

I personally believed that if there were two models to choose from, the combined orders would exceed that of the A380 and B748 combined. Many airlines are holding out due to the uncertainties in the VLA segment such as Boeings plans and a possible enlargement to the A380, and not many are warm to the idea of the B748 versus a completely new plane. The true size of the VLA market includes that of the hundreds of 744s already in service, and is actually rather sizeable and can only get bigger.

Quoting KarlB737 (Reply 2):

What US airlines would buy it?

What US airlines even need it.

As big as the US airlines may be, they are not the primary market for widebodies, let alone VLAs. Hence one can hardly look at US airlines to ascertain the true market of the VLAs. Afterall, how many B744s do they own compared to the huge fleets in much smaller airlines round the world?

Quoting polot (Reply 6):
They believed (possibly still believe) that the market was just too small to spend all that money on a new aircraft. They let Airbus do it because they think that Airbus is not going to make money off the A380 program.

You are probably right in your first sentence concerning the size of the market, but the second is questionable. I see it more of them seeing that there can only be one player, but they were too slow in entering that market, and hence retreated from it.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27645
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Why No Boeing Full Double-decker Super Jumbo

Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:35 am

Quoting huaiwei (Reply 34):
I personally believed that if there were two models to choose from, the combined orders would exceed that of the A380 and B748 combined. Many airlines are holding out due to the uncertainties in the VLA segment such as Boeings plans and a possible enlargement to the A380, and not many are warm to the idea of the B748 versus a completely new plane.

Considering the decades of experience Boeing and their customers had with the 747, if Boeing had decided to launch the NLA as a completely new plane with all the latest bells and whistles of the time, I wonder if it might not have been better received by airlines than the A3XX which, as magnificent an airframe as it is, might have been seen as a more riskier option in comparison (and successful airlines do tend to be conservative creatures).
 
astuteman
Posts: 7420
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Why No Boeing Full Double-decker Super Jumbo

Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:49 am

Quoting Tdan (Reply 13):
Airbus bet that growth would be through increases in gauge whereas Boeing bet that it would be through point to point fragmentation. This philosophy determined each of their next product offerings, the A380 and 787 respectively.

Firstly. Welcome to A-net.

And thanks for this first post.

Which I not only disagree with, but one that promulgates a long-held myth here on A-net that there was a fundamental difference in philosophy between Being and Airbus.
There wasn't, and there isn't   

If Boeing bet that growth would be through point-to point fragmentation, then Airbus were right there with them, and possibly before.
787-8?
Airbus already have the A330-200 in that space, and have had since it was launched in June 1997
787-9?
Would seem to be a pretty good replacement for the similarly sized A340-300, which has been plying the skies as a long-range medium sized widebody since 1993.
A Boeing equivalent didn't exist until the 772ER went into service in Feb 97

Which happens to be 4 months before the A340NG was launched (Paris air show 1997)

Scroll foward to 1999.

Airbus have the A333 and A332 in service.
The A340-500 and 600 have been in production for 2 years, and are due to fly in another 2.

Below the 747, Boeing's line stops at the 772ER and 773 (in 1999)

The truth is, that at the time the decision was made to launch the A380, in the summer of 2000, Airbus already had all of the other bases covered, especially medium to long haul "point-to-point".
There was only one place they didn't have cover. 747-400 and over.

At the launch of the A380, the A340NG was selling pretty well, and continued to do so right through into 2003.

There was no indication whatsoever of what was to come when the 773ER totally aced its specs, and buried the A340NG.
The 773ER went into service in April 2004, just 8 months before the A380 was due to fly (and just 1 year before it actually did).

So no matter what quasi-political rhetoric people might want to throw at Airbus and the launch of the A380, they were doing nothing more than completing a portfolio, which at the time SEEMINGLY already had every other market covered off, including point-to-point.

For what it's worth, if the 787 isn't just Boeing's (extremely good) modern take ion the A330-200 and A330-300, then I'm Dutch. And I'm not   

Hindsight suggests that Airbus's mistake was to do the the A340NG, as opposed to an all-new 777L/W "look-alike twin".

Wonderful thing, hindsight.

Boeing have done the 787 because they had to respond to Airbus, not because of some philosophical difference.

Why haven't Boeing gone all-out for a new VLA?

Very simple. 2 reasons.
Firstly, they had their hands completely full with the 787

Secondly, once the 787's engines came along, they already had a proven platform that they could adopt to compete

Quoting Tdan (Reply 13):
Boeing, on the other hand, doesn't need a full double-decker aircraft when it can make minor modifications to the 747 and still compete with the A380

As you yourself point out  

Apologies for the "right-back-at-you" response to your first post.

Enjoy your A-netting

Quoting bringiton (Reply 28):
The 748 was a sensible move because all of Boeing's internal research suggested a market of about 500-600 airframes in the VLA segment

It was also sensible because the 747 was already there......

Quoting bringiton (Reply 30):
In another words , what is paramount for both Airbus and Boeing , is not to have every product better then the other and compete like two crazy warriors , but to have a strong portfolio of jetliners throughout the size segments

This is the bottom line, my friend. Nothing more, nothing less

Rgds
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8573
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Why No Boeing Full Double-decker Super Jumbo

Wed Nov 30, 2011 6:10 am

Quoting bringiton (Reply 27):
On Hind sight both marketing departments overpromised and under delivered when it came to the 787 and 380 product and both are equally to be blamed.

In defense of the marketing departments, it's not their job to deliver...that's what engineering/operations is supposed to do. The marketing departments on both sides did a fantastic job.

Quoting bringiton (Reply 30):
In another words , what is paramount for both Airbus and Boeing , is not to have every product better then the other and compete like two crazy warriors , but to have a strong portfolio of jetliners throughout the size segments.

Exactly. Even if either OEM could create an airliner so much better than the other that it should get 100% market share on technical merit (which will happen when pigs fly), neither one of them has the capacity or supply chain to supply 100% of the market in *any* category. The best strategy for both is to be competitive and profitable, not attempt to slaughter the other guy.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 32):
Boeing expected the 747-8 to be pretty much a two-plug fuselage stretch and a version of the bleed-air GEnx engines being developed for the (original) A350.

The bleed GEnX engines were already in the works even before the original A350.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 32):
It was only once they went into detailed design work did they realize they had to re-profile the wing to work with those new engines.

This is, to put bluntly, untrue. I highly recommend reading this paper, written by one of the guys who actually did the trade studies for the 747-8:
http://www.icas.org/ICAS_ARCHIVE_CD1998-2010/ICAS2008/PAPERS/073.PDF

They actually reached the opposite conclusion intially...they did *not* have to re-profile the wing to use the new engines. The re-loft was needed to reach the payload-range target.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 32):
And then once they went into flight test, that new re-profiled wing needed modifications to the gear doors for low-speed operations and at higher speeds and weights generated flutter that required adding FBW to some of the control surfaces to counteract.

Also untrue...the 747-8 already had FBW ailerons before flight test even started and the flutter issues were discovered. They were darn lucky because FBW enabled the fix to the flutter issue but that's not why the FBW was there in the first place.

Tom.
 
packsonflight
Posts: 386
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:55 pm

RE: Why No Boeing Full Double-decker Super Jumbo

Wed Nov 30, 2011 8:57 am

Quoting bringiton (Reply 27):
They screwed up on the dream liner execution (ROYALLY) , so did AIRBUS with the A380 so much so that many analysts believe that break even point has doubled to 400 plus. On Hind sight both marketing departments overpromised and under delivered when it came to the 787 and 380 product

The 380 and 787 are quite a different kind of screw-ups the 380 was certified only 3 months late and according to the airlines that received the first copies "met or bettered everything promised" The cause of the delay were production problems.

Boeing on the other hand was 3.5 years late with the certification of the 787 and there are indications that the first copies are severely penalized. on top of that they still can run into the 380 production problem.
 
bringiton
Posts: 763
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:24 am

RE: Why No Boeing Full Double-decker Super Jumbo

Wed Nov 30, 2011 9:12 am

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 38):
The 380 and 787 are quite a different kind of screw-ups the 380 was certified only 3 months late and according to the airlines that received the first copies "met or bettered everything promised" The cause of the delay were production problems.

Boeing on the other hand was 3.5 years late with the certification of the 787 and there are indications that the first copies are severely penalized. on top of that they still can run into the 380 production problem.

My point was that both the dreamliner and the 380 suffered financially , as to which did more , and which has a better chance of getting through and making a higher ROI remains to be seen..It is obvious that the 2 programs suffered differently and had different challenges to overcome !
 
747400sp
Posts: 3900
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

RE: Why No Boeing Full Double-decker Super Jumbo

Wed Nov 30, 2011 4:27 pm

Both the A380 and 787, lost customers over their delays. If the A380 was on time, Airbus would have been able to build an A380F by now, and FX, 5X and EK, would have kept there A380F order. If the 787 was on time, ZB may have kept their 787 order. Now FX never put in work, the ideal of replacing two MD11s with one A380, and ZB do not have a new state of the art plane to replace their A300 fleet.  
 
ljupco
Topic Author
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 11:03 am

RE: Why No Boeing Full Double-decker Super Jumbo

Tue Dec 06, 2011 8:36 pm

Thanks to everyone. I have a pretty wider picture now.
 
User avatar
zippyjet
Posts: 5189
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2001 3:32 pm

RE: Why No Boeing Full Double-decker Super Jumbo

Tue Dec 06, 2011 10:58 pm

When the 747 was in development wasn't there a proposal or 2 for a double decker? And I believe Lockheed when they were producing their L1011 had a possible double decker spin off. They also had a couple of smaller twins based on the L1011.
 
747400sp
Posts: 3900
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

RE: Why No Boeing Full Double-decker Super Jumbo

Tue Dec 06, 2011 11:05 pm

Quoting zippyjet (Reply 42):
When the 747 was in development wasn't there a proposal or 2 for a double decker? And I believe Lockheed when they were producing their L1011 had a possible double decker spin off. They also had a couple of smaller twins based on the L1011.




Lockheed proposed a civilian version of the C-5 called the L-500, and I believe there was a passenger version of the L-500.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27645
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Why No Boeing Full Double-decker Super Jumbo

Tue Dec 06, 2011 11:15 pm

Quoting zippyjet (Reply 42):
When the 747 was in development wasn't there a proposal or 2 for a double decker?

Yes, one of the early concepts was two single-aisle decks:

Boeing 747 Twin-Deck Narrowbody Study


Quoting 747400sp (Reply 43):
Lockheed proposed a civilian version of the C-5 called the L-500, and I believe there was a passenger version of the L-500.

Yes, there were both passenger and freighter concepts of the L-500.

Lockheed L-500 Commercial Airliner Concept
 
User avatar
zippyjet
Posts: 5189
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2001 3:32 pm

RE: Why No Boeing Full Double-decker Super Jumbo

Wed Dec 07, 2011 2:28 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 44):

Yes, there were both passenger and freighter concepts of the L-500.

Around what year was this program? Did this predate the L1011 program?
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8573
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Why No Boeing Full Double-decker Super Jumbo

Wed Dec 07, 2011 3:41 am

Quoting zippyjet (Reply 45):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 44):

Yes, there were both passenger and freighter concepts of the L-500.

Around what year was this program? Did this predate the L1011 program?

Yes. The L-500 is basically the civilian version of the C-5, which started development in the early 60's before the L-1011.

Tom.
 
milesrich
Posts: 1508
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 2:46 am

RE: Why No Boeing Full Double-decker Super Jumbo

Wed Dec 07, 2011 4:27 am

Quoting chieft (Reply 5):
Well, trunk routes in high density config - that could release airlines on some legs from slot restrictions and the per seat costs could be sensational. But that counts also for the A380.

I belive, that some Asian carriers could be interested - the ones which don't want Airbus for some reasons...

In the USA, using larger aircraft could solve slot restrictions but the trend has been just the opposite, replace a 150 seat airplane with two 70 seat airplanes. The airline live and die on yield, and having fewer seats at two different but close together times, seems to yield them more revenue than one flight placed near or between the two. Why else would they operate smaller aircraft on key routes that have hourly or even more frequent service, instead of lets say, larger aircraft at 90 minute intervals. 30 minutes is not that big of deal. For example, Delta has hourly service between LGA and ATL. How many of those passengers are O&D on that flight, and how many connect to other flights in Atlanta? The frequency doesn't mean to the connecting passengers, only to the O&D, yet Delta operates smaller aircraft and more frequencies.
 
User avatar
zippyjet
Posts: 5189
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2001 3:32 pm

RE: Why No Boeing Full Double-decker Super Jumbo

Wed Dec 07, 2011 4:33 am

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 46):
Yes. The L-500 is basically the civilian version of the C-5, which started development in the early 60's before the L-1011.

I was thinking of starting a spinoff thread: What if the Lockheed L500 became a reality? Could it have been a success? If this was developed in the early 60's there would have still been a 5 to 10 year window for it to succeed. Before the Nixon economic downturn and Arab oil embargos of the early 70's. I'm curious to hear everyone's feelings/opinions.   
 
astuteman
Posts: 7420
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Why No Boeing Full Double-decker Super Jumbo

Wed Dec 07, 2011 5:45 am

Quoting milesrich (Reply 47):
In the USA, using larger aircraft could solve slot restrictions but the trend has been just the opposite, replace a 150 seat airplane with two 70 seat airplanes.

This is all very interesting, but once again I confess to being mystified as to what the regional jet experience in the USA has even remotely to do with long-haul international travel, which is a completely different ball-game..

Rgds

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