Why Not A Full Double Decker 747?

kl692 · Mon Jul 16, 2012 2:03 am

I have been wondering about this a lot lately, why didn't Boeing made the 748! a full double Decker like the A380. Makes me wonder if they would have been able to sell a lot faster consider how well the A380 is doing. So why didn't Boeing made the 748I a double Decker?

Lets here it.

phxa340 · Mon Jul 16, 2012 2:07 am

Quoting kl692 (Thread starter):
how well the A380 is doing

The A380 has secured 257 orders , of which at least 5 are on shaky ground (Kingfisher). It is simply not that large of a market. While the 747-8i has definitely not been a stellar seller, the engineering costs were limited compared to what it would have cost to completely reengineer it to make the second level extend all the way to the back.

longhauler · Mon Jul 16, 2012 2:09 am

I have seen drawings and engineering studies from Boeing of a full length double-deck B747 for about 30+ years. Likely it is feasible, and if any airline wanted it, I am sure it would have been built. It would seem no one wanted it.

Yes, the A380 is a success. Can you ever envision Airbus though, selling as many A380s, as Boeing has sold B747s?

PC12Fan · Mon Jul 16, 2012 2:26 am

It's an apple to oranges thing, but as my wife has said (IMO one of the greatest quotes ever) we're still talking about fruit.

They would be two entirely different animals. A double decker 747 wouldn't nearly have the range of the A380 and would have been schooled by it. If Boeing wanted to truly compete with the A380, they would have. But they have proven themselves correct that there is room for only one aircraft in that market. If they dove into that pool, they would have shot themselves in the foot, big time. Boeing truly made the right move and put pride aside.

The 747 may have been overtaken as the biggest airliner of the skies, but she is still the Queen.

[Edited 2012-07-15 19:27:39]

Stitch · Mon Jul 16, 2012 2:31 am

Quoting kl692 (Thread starter):
I have been wondering about this a lot lately, why didn't Boeing made the 748! a full double Decker like the A380?

Because the 747 airframe is not designed for it and I would honestly not be surprised that if Boeing approached the FAA and/or EASA, one or both agencies would refuse to certifiy it if Boeing submitted such a plane.

Polot · Mon Jul 16, 2012 3:06 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 5):
Because the 747 airframe is not designed for it and I would honestly not be surprised that if Boeing approached the FAA and/or EASA, one or both agencies would refuse to certifiy it if Boeing submitted such a plane.

I assume you mean certify it as a derivative?

[Edited 2012-07-15 20:06:17]

Stitch · Mon Jul 16, 2012 4:09 am

Quoting poLOT (Reply 6):
I assume you mean certify it as a derivative?

Some 747 features - such as seating with only one set of exits (nose and forward upper deck) - are allowed only because they were grandfathered in to the original 747 certifications. If Boeing made too many changes, the new model might not be allowed those grandfatherings and would have to be certified to current standards.

panpan · Mon Jul 16, 2012 4:22 am

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 4):
It's an apple to oranges thing, but as my wife has said (IMO one of the greatest quotes ever) we're still talking about fruit.

How is it that your wife doesn't post herself? Seems to me she's a genius.

HBGDS · Mon Jul 16, 2012 4:56 pm

In his book on the 747, Joe Sutter notes that he and his team thought it absurd to go full double-decker because of the logistics on the ground would have made it very complicated to handle, and there just was no demand for that. When the 741 arrived, it was TOO big for several projected markets, notably the US domestic one. Why bother build something hard to sell?

AA94 · Mon Jul 16, 2012 5:28 pm

Quoting phxa340 (Reply 1):
The A380 has secured 257 orders , of which at least 5 are on shaky ground (Kingfisher). It is simply not that large of a market. While the 747-8i has definitely not been a stellar seller, the engineering costs were limited compared to what it would have cost to completely reengineer it to make the second level extend all the way to the back.

This is my thought as well. Sure, the A380 has enough orders to be considered a successful aircraft, but I don't think there is room for two different a/c types in the A380's market. If an airline needs the kind of capacity that the A380 brings to the table, then they likely would have ordered it already. I simply don't think that a double-decker 747 would bring anything new to the "huge jet" market.

Further, even though the A380 has enjoyed success, it will never sell along the lines of the 747, IMO. There were more than 1,400 747s built. Can you imagine seeing that number (or even close to that number) of Whalejets flying around?

Just my

.

American 767 · Mon Jul 16, 2012 6:37 pm

Likewise one could say why not an A380 with only one full deck and a hump, I mean an upper deck taking only part of the fuselage length.

bikerthai · Mon Jul 16, 2012 7:15 pm

And as most here will agree, the 747-8 will be most successful as a F variant. The extra deck does nothing to cargo operation other than provide room for 3 stars ping pong balls.:D

bt

railker · Mon Jul 16, 2012 8:08 pm

IIRC, that IMAX film they made from that footage of the 787 First Flight had some mention of the 747's "alternative concepts" when they first built it, can't recall if they were just sketches or whatnot, but I remember there being a version with the hump in the back, a full double decker, etc.

mogandoCI · Mon Jul 16, 2012 8:12 pm

Quoting AA94 (Reply 9):
Sure, the A380 has enough orders to be considered a successful aircraft, but I don't think there is room for two different a/c types in the A380's market.

Does the 200-something A380 sales even recoup the R&D costs + delay compensation ? If not, I hardly call it successful.

Possibly the only way for A380 to be profitable over the life of its program is if Airbus launch multiple future derivatives with minimal dev costs (388LR, 389, 388LRF etc). Just A388 alone, I'm not so sure.

dennys · Mon Jul 16, 2012 8:55 pm

The MC Douglas MD12X should have been rethought by Boeing . Not to mension the so finer aerodynamism look of this MD12X Project !

Aesma · Mon Jul 16, 2012 9:00 pm

Quoting American 767 (Reply 10):
Likewise one could say why not an A380 with only one full deck and a hump, I mean an upper deck taking only part of the fuselage length.

Because there is a reason for the hump on the 747, and it was not to carry passengers. The A380 was not always a double decker, but it was always intended to carry more passengers than anything else.

JoeCanuck · Mon Jul 16, 2012 9:03 pm

Considering the 748 was overweight, underpowered and late upon EIS, I can't imagine what would have been the result if Boeing would have gone with a full length upper deck...though I still think that the 748 just isn't a significant enough improvement over the 744 to really make it worth the effort.

It seems it was the most they could do and not suffer having to recertify the aircraft as a whole, but still not enough. I doubt the 748 will ever recoup its investment.

Oykie · Mon Jul 16, 2012 9:03 pm

Kaktus digital did a nice concept of a Boeing double deck, that looks more like a 777 than a 747. this looks nice!

rampart · Mon Jul 16, 2012 9:07 pm

Quoting longhauler (Reply 2):
I have seen drawings and engineering studies from Boeing of a full length double-deck B747 for about 30+ years.

Quoting railker (Reply 12):
IIRC, that IMAX film they made from that footage of the 787 First Flight had some mention of the 747's "alternative concepts" when they first built it, can't recall if they were just sketches or whatnot, but I remember there being a version with the hump in the back, a full double decker, etc.

Yes, and early version of the 747 back in the 1960s was configured as a full 2 decks.

Wow, look what I found on Google, an archived A.net page from 2006. Scroll down and there are photos of early 747 models, like the one I'm thinking of.
https://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...ral_aviation/print.main?id=2686708

-Rampart

bigjku · Mon Jul 16, 2012 9:15 pm

Quoting oykie (Reply 17):
Kaktus digital did a nice concept of a Boeing double deck, that looks more like a 777 than a 747. this looks nice!

I find all the double-deckers to be ugly as sin. They all look like beluga whales.

ADent · Mon Jul 16, 2012 9:45 pm

There was a thread a last year with interesting images: Why No Boeing Full Double-decker Super Jumbo (by ljupco Nov 28 2011 in Civil Aviation) of 747-500x, 747-700X, Boeing NLA, and the mid wing double decker 747.

Even with the 747-700X Boeing was willing to widen the fuselage (and stretch it), rather than a full double-deck.

It looks like the entire aft fuselage would have to be redesigned to accommodate a double deck - then you still have evacuation problems, etc. Might as well go with an all new plane (like the NLA).

my235 · Mon Jul 16, 2012 9:49 pm

One simple answer...It would look absolutely positively butt-ugly.

Stitch · Mon Jul 16, 2012 10:52 pm

Quoting oykie (Reply 17):
Kaktus digital did a nice concept of a Boeing double deck, that looks more like a 777 than a 747.

That is the Boeing NLA (New Large Airplane), which was based on the MD-12X.

PC12Fan · Tue Jul 17, 2012 12:07 am

Quoting panpan (Reply 7):
How is it that your wife doesn't post herself? Seems to me she's a genius.

Thanks very much, but we were having a healthy debate - no really - about another subject.

JoeCanuck · Tue Jul 17, 2012 12:10 am

Quoting oykie (Reply 17):

Take that...put a 747 cockpit on the thing and voila...some real, double deckish goodness.

tonymctigue · Tue Jul 17, 2012 12:12 am

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 13):
Does the 200-something A380 sales even recoup the R&D costs + delay compensation ? If not, I hardly call it successful.

I was just going to ask this question. Clearly the A380 is a technological success just for overcoming the challenges of building an aircraft that large and it seems to have out performed its original targets but how many frames do Airbus need to sell in order to recoup the development costs and make it a commercial success. I can imagine it is alot more than 257 and although there was a surge of interest at the start, orders seemed to have slowed somewhat and it is difficult to see where new customers are going to come from. For comparison sake, the MD11 sold 200 air frames and it was considered by many to be a failure and I can imagine that it only cost a fraction to develop compared to the A380. There is also the worrying aspect that Airbus have to date failed to sell a single cargo variant with cargo operators opting for the B748F instead. As for being a commercial success, I think the jury will be out on the A380 for a while yet.

Stitch · Tue Jul 17, 2012 12:17 am

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 13):
Does the 200-something A380 sales even recoup the R&D costs + delay compensation ? If not, I hardly call it successful.

Quoting tonymctigue (Reply 26):
I was just going to ask this question.

The question has been asked literally thousands of times on this forum and the answer is "nobody knows" since the A380 is not even in her first decade of production and revenue service. Ask again in a couple of decades or when Airbus has removed the family from offer and delivered the last airframe.

Now back to the topic at hand, please.

kl692 · Tue Jul 17, 2012 12:33 am

Quoting my235 (Reply 21):
One simple answer...It would look absolutely positively butt-ugly.

I am sure it will look a lot better than the whale with flying wings

nomadd22 · Tue Jul 17, 2012 1:15 am

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 19):
I find all the double-deckers to be ugly as sin. They all look like beluga whales.

How could you call a beauty like this ugly?

Bobloblaw · Tue Jul 17, 2012 2:05 am

Remember the MD-12??????????????

Aesma · Tue Jul 17, 2012 10:28 pm

Quoting tonymctigue (Reply 26):
There is also the worrying aspect that Airbus have to date failed to sell a single cargo variant with cargo operators opting for the B748F instead. As for being a commercial success, I think the jury will be out on the A380 for a while yet.

There is no cargo version offered. When there was one, it sold. But Airbus decided to postpone it.

ebj1248650 · Tue Jul 17, 2012 11:48 pm

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 29):
How could you call a beauty like this ugly?

As I recall, the Boeing design that featured the upper deck on the back half of the fuselage was rejected by airlines, notably because they didn't think passengers would want to fly on it. It had an awkward look, whether it was aerodynamically feasible or financially profitable.

As for why Boeing didn't pursue the double deck 747: Airlines just weren't interested in it, at least not at the time it was proposed. As for the A380 and 748i, I remain convinced it's way too soon to judge the success of either one. I recall that Boeing didn't think they'd sell more than 600 747s over the production life of the airplane and look where we are now. The global economy will have a lot of influence on airliner sales well into the future and, economically, it still feels very rough around the edges.

tonymctigue · Wed Jul 18, 2012 12:22 am

Quoting Aesma (Reply 31):
There is no cargo version offered. When there was one, it sold. But Airbus decided to postpone it.

Why would postpone something if it was selling? Furthermore, why are Airbus in no immediate rush to resume development of a cargo variant now that the passenger version has been in active service for a few years now? If Airbus postponed the A380F, then my guess would be is that no one wanted it. As far as I am aware, the last cargo order was placed in 2002, bringing the cumulative total of confirmed orders to 17 for the cargo version when compared to a 78 for the passenger version. To put that in perspective (and seeing as there is a current thread on this topic) that is less than the current operational fleet of An-124s so the A380F is hardly what I would call a hot seller. It is also my understanding that the airlines cancelled their orders before Airbus suspended the program. They way things seemed to have panned out is Boeing are willing to leave the VLA passenger market to Airbus and the A380 while Airbus are happy to leave the VLA cargo market to Boeing and the B747-8F.

tdscanuck · Wed Jul 18, 2012 12:51 am

Quoting ebj1248650 (Reply 32):
As for why Boeing didn't pursue the double deck 747

It's important to remember why the 747 got a second deck in the first place; it had nothing to do with capacity.

Boeing (PanAm) wanted a much bigger jet; Boeing played with double-deck 707 type designs for a long time before they stumbled onto the widebody idea (two aisles). It was the wide fuselage, not the tall fuselage, that gave the airlines the capacity they wanted without the hassle of a double-deck single-aisle.

If that were the end of the story, the 747 would have looked like a fat 777 with four engines and the iconic hump (and related second deck) never would have happened.

But...the 747 was being developed at the exact same time as the 2707 (the SST). Boeing believed, as did pretty much everyone else at the time, that SST's were the way of the future for passenger travel and therefore the 747 would have a short life as a passenger aircraft and would life out its life primarily as a freighter. That requirement pushed the flight deck up above the cargo deck so they could nose-load. And the hump was here to stay.

Tom.

KDAYflyer · Wed Jul 18, 2012 12:53 am

Quoting kl692 (Thread starter):
I have been wondering about this a lot lately, why didn't Boeing made the 748! a full double Decker like the A380. Makes me wonder if they would have been able to sell a lot faster consider how well the A380 is doing. So why didn't Boeing made the 748I a double Decker?

Lets here it.

As the great Leahy said himself, they will miss the sales goal for the A-380 by quite a bit this year. The goal was 30 frames. Not enough demand for one of these types, let alone two. I believe that due to it's smaller size the 747-8 will eventually sell more frames than the A-380.

tonymctigue · Wed Jul 18, 2012 12:59 am

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 34):
But...the 747 was being developed at the exact same time as the 2707 (the SST). Boeing believed, as did pretty much everyone else at the time, that SST's were the way of the future for passenger travel and therefore the 747 would have a short life as a passenger aircraft and would life out its life primarily as a freighter. That requirement pushed the flight deck up above the cargo deck so they could nose-load. And the hump was here to stay.

That is it exactly. The B747 hump was so that the cock pit did not get in the way of its ability to be loaded through the front. This means that the size of the cargo item it limited only by the internal volume of the B747 itself. Other cargo aircraft that are loaded through side cargo doors are much more limited in terms of the largest single cargo item they can carry because the side of the aircraft gets in the way.

Aesma · Wed Jul 18, 2012 3:34 am

Quoting tonymctigue (Reply 33):
Why would postpone something if it was selling?

Well, you may have not heard of the problems the A380 program ran into ? The passenger version got delayed, so that delayed the cargo even more.

Sure, the orders number of the A380F played a role, if there was 200 on the book it would have been developed.

tonymctigue · Wed Jul 18, 2012 3:59 am

Quoting Aesma (Reply 37):
Well, you may have not heard of the problems the A380 program ran into ? The passenger version got delayed, so that delayed the cargo even more.

Sure, the passenger version was delayed but was still winning orders. The A350 has been delayed several times already but is still winning orders. The B787 has been delayed several times but still won orders. Delays don't seem to have turned airlines away from ordering aircraft nor put manufacturers off developing them. The reason why the A380F was postponed and has never been developed any further is because it was obvious no one wanted it. The passenger version first flew almost seven years ago and entered service almost five years ago, certainly long enough to sort out any remaining problems with developing a freighter version but we haven't seen or heard of it since.

The A380F is not a B747F alternative. It is kinda stuck in a no mans land between the day to day cargo jobs that the B747F does and the highly specialised cargo jobs the likes of the An-124/An-225 does. If demand for such an aircraft existed, then either Airbus would have developed and entered into service the A380.

VS11 · Wed Jul 18, 2012 4:06 am

Quoting kl692 (Thread starter):
have been wondering about this a lot lately, why didn't Boeing made the 748! a full double Decker like the A380. Makes me wonder if they would have been able to sell a lot faster consider how well the A380 is doing. So why didn't Boeing made the 748I a double Decker?

The reason has been known for quite some time - Boeing didn't/doesn't think the market for Very Large Airplane was large enough to justify the investment. Boeing and Airbus did a study together on the VLA market sometime in the 90s I believe and based on that study Boeing decided not to pursue a VLA. Airbus thought otherwise.

The B747 design was an offspring of a proposal for an airplane that Boeing put together for the Air Force. They didn't win the contract but they re-purposed the design.

AirlineCritic · Wed Jul 18, 2012 7:34 am

Quoting tonymctigue (Reply 38):
Sure, the passenger version was delayed but was still winning orders. The A350 has been delayed several times already but is still winning orders. The B787 has been delayed several times but still won orders. Delays don't seem to have turned airlines away from ordering aircraft nor put manufacturers off developing them. The reason why the A380F was postponed and has never been developed any further is because it was obvious no one wanted it. The passenger version first flew almost seven years ago and entered service almost five years ago, certainly long enough to sort out any remaining problems with developing a freighter version but we haven't seen or heard of it since.

Tony, I think they will have an opening for you in the Airbus factories in solving any remaining problems, quickly

The A380 has been plagued by manufacturing problems and then later an engine and wing crack problem. It is hard to tell why there are not that many orders currently. It could be for several reasons: economy, lack of real business need, or, my personal belief, lack of ability for Airbus to deliver more of these birds. The ramp-up for building A380 has been much slower than originally planned, and they are struggling to deliver the number of birds they would like. The waiting list for a newly ordered A380 is long.

Orders for B787 by the way also went to a trickle, even negative for some years. The waiting list was too long.

tonymctigue · Wed Jul 18, 2012 8:25 am

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 40):
Tony, I think they will have an opening for you in the Airbus factories in solving any remaining problems, quickly The A380 has been plagued by manufacturing problems and then later an engine and wing crack problem. It is hard to tell why there are not that many orders currently. It could be for several reasons: economy, lack of real business need, or, my personal belief, lack of ability for Airbus to deliver more of these birds.

Surely a company the size of Airbus that has the resources to work on more than one project at a time or more accurately, work on two different aspects of what is basically the same project at a time? Surely the entire team that developed the A380 are not all working on fixing these problems with the passenger versoin. Five years is a pretty long time and the fact remains that Airbus have done nothing to develop a freigher version. If someone wanted this aircraft, Airbus would have done something to progress the development and the sales team would be out trying to find customers but so far, we've seen none of this. My point is if there was going to be an A380F, then why has its development been parked since 2002 when UPS cancelled their order? And to go back to the original topic of this thread, if the demand for a full double-deck cargo plane ever existed, then why did Boeing never make a full length, double-deck version of the B747? And by the way, if Airbus are looking for an engineer, I'm currently unemployed and will be more than willing to send them a CV

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 40):
Orders for B787 by the way also went to a trickle, even negative for some years. The waiting list was too long.

You're talking about two different things here. Orders being cancelled because there were too many airlines wanted it rather than airlines cancelling orders because not one wanted it.

tokolosh · Wed Jul 18, 2012 8:44 am

As already mentioned, the hump of the 747 is there so that the cockpit does not interfere with the front loading of cargo. In the passenger version the use of the hump as a passenger cabin was an afterthought (originally was seen as useful as a crew rest area!). Since it was not originally intended for passengers, the hump is not a full deck, which is the major difference with the A380. Both of the A380s decks are full width, therefore even extending the 747s deck all the way would not enable it to compete with the Airbus in terms of spaciousness and passenger comfort.

135mech · Wed Jul 18, 2012 5:49 pm

Quoting tonymctigue (Reply 26):
I was just going to ask this question. Clearly the A380 is a technological success just for overcoming the challenges of building an aircraft that large and it seems to have out performed its original targets but how many frames do Airbus need to sell in order to recoup the development costs and make it a commercial success. I can imagine it is alot more than 257 and although there was a surge of interest at the start, orders seemed to have slowed somewhat and it is difficult to see where new customers are going to come from. For comparison sake, the MD11 sold 200 air frames and it was considered by many to be a failure and I can imagine that it only cost a fraction to develop compared to the A380. There is also the worrying aspect that Airbus have to date failed to sell a single cargo variant with cargo operators opting for the B748F instead. As for being a commercial success, I think the jury will be out on the A380 for a while yet.

The other issues for the A380F orders being cancelled (I believe) early could have been atleast 2 that come to mind right away...

First: the ability to load cargo in the second deck that high...safely...would be a nightmare to overcome off the start. Cargo loading equipment only goes so high, and once you surpass that you have to spend an awful amount of money modifying existing equipment or creating all new equipment to be able to do the job.

Second of all is the same problem that many of the U.S. airports now have, the land/space for those large birds to land/taxi with out obstructing other operations and slowing things down.

135Mech

135mech · Wed Jul 18, 2012 5:58 pm

Quoting tokolosh (Reply 42):
As already mentioned, the hump of the 747 is there so that the cockpit does not interfere with the front loading of cargo. In the passenger version the use of the hump as a passenger cabin was an afterthought (originally was seen as useful as a crew rest area!).

The first airlines that bought them also used them as lounges... Pianos, couches, bars, etc. Then the airlines got the idea to put up oversized seating and charge a premium for that area after realizing they could make more money with more people on board, and it worked well from then on.

Stitch · Wed Jul 18, 2012 6:02 pm

Quoting 135mech (Reply 43):
...

The A380-800F would have likely been deployed between heavy cargo hubs, so the infrastructure costs of adding dual-level loaders to those facilities would not have been much of a financial burden. And cargo hub airports that see plenty of daily 747-400 freighter movements should have been able to accommodate the A380-800F.

To me, the fact that general cargo operators continued to order the 747-400 freighter as opposed to the A380-800 freighter is what effectively terminated the latter. Depending on whose data you use, the suitability of the A380-800F for general cargo at an average density of 160kg/3 varies, but even the most optimistic data (Airbus') showed the A380-800F was not going to as effectively utilize the available space as a 747-400 or 747-8 freighter would, even though the A380-800F would carry more by volume and weight.

I truly believe FX wanted the A380-800F more for her range than her volume and once Boeing made the 777 Freighter available, FX changed their order from the A380F to the 777F. Yes, FX needed two 777Fs to provide the same general volume as one A380F, but that also gave FX scheduling flexibility and their main hubs are not critically slot-restricted for cargo operations.

I do believe UPS will eventually add the 777F, as well, but they do have both new-build and converted 747-400 freighters, so I could see their planning being driven by capacity more than range and therefore they were willing to wait for the A380F and had their hand forced when Airbus set it aside.

astuteman · Wed Jul 18, 2012 6:13 pm

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 13):
Does the 200-something A380 sales even recoup the R&D costs + delay compensation ? If not, I hardly call it successful.

I'm not sure when it became essential for airliners to recoup all of their costs within the first decade. Even the 787 won't get remotely close to that - it will be nearer 2 decades than one for the 787 to achieve the objectives you set here..

Quoting HBGDS (Reply 8):
In his book on the 747, Joe Sutter notes that he and his team thought it absurd to go full double-decker because of the logistics on the ground would have made it very complicated to handle

But time moves on, and so does airport infrastructure

Quoting AA94 (Reply 9):
There were more than 1,400 747s built. Can you imagine seeing that number (or even close to that number) of Whalejets flying around?

Funnily enough, I can envisage a scenario where A380's get into 4 figures... but over 4 decades and a number of derivatives, much like the 747.
That's not to say it WILL happen

Quoting tonymctigue (Reply 26):
There is also the worrying aspect that Airbus have to date failed to sell a single cargo variant

They sold 27 before they pulled it

Quoting tonymctigue (Reply 33):
Why would postpone something if it was selling?

To focus all of the effort on minimising the devastation on the much better selling passenger version

Quoting tonymctigue (Reply 38):
The reason why the A380F was postponed and has never been developed any further is because it was obvious no one wanted it

See above

Quoting tonymctigue (Reply 38):
The passenger version first flew almost seven years ago and entered service almost five years ago, certainly long enough to sort out any remaining problems with developing a freighter version

In my dreams they've finally sorted all of the issues associated with the passenger version.
But then I wake up. And they haven't.

Rgds

mogandoCI · Wed Jul 18, 2012 6:22 pm

Quoting astuteman (Reply 47):
I'm not sure when it became essential for airliners to recoup all of their costs within the first decade. Even the 787 won't get remotely close to that - it will be nearer 2 decades than one for the 787 to achieve the objectives you set here..

The difference is that the 787 is definitely profitable even assuming 0 new orders, assuming all 800-ish existing orders remain. I wasn't arguing 787 being profitable within 10 years, but merely, profitable NPV as the order book stands today.

With the A380, my gut feel is that at least 1 more derivative (freighter, NEO, stretch, you name it) needs to be launched (and embraced by EK) for it to reach the break even point.

Stitch · Wed Jul 18, 2012 6:39 pm

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 48):
With the A380, my gut feel is that at least 1 more derivative (freighter, NEO, stretch, you name it) needs to be launched (and embraced by EK) for it to reach the break even point.

Twelve years after Authority to Offer was given, the 747 family had secured 316 orders across 8 models. The A380-800 has secured 257 with just one model in the same period so while it may need a new model (or at least some new Weight Variants) to "break even", it's doing a fair job of selling in general, IMO.

[Edited 2012-07-18 11:40:31]

ouboy79 · Wed Jul 18, 2012 6:55 pm

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 11):
And as most here will agree, the 747-8 will be most successful as a F variant. The extra deck does nothing to cargo operation other than provide room for 3 stars ping pong balls.:D

Ding ding ding. The VLA market is fairly small. So Boeing was smart in staying in the lower end of that with a design that will still offer superior capacity in the cargo world. A double decker would not have provided any advantage to cargo hauling and it is going to be mostly wasted space.

astuteman · Wed Jul 18, 2012 7:17 pm

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 48):
The difference is that the 787 is definitely profitable even assuming 0 new orders, assuming all 800-ish existing orders remain. I wasn't arguing 787 being profitable within 10 years, but merely, profitable NPV as the order book stands today

You caught me red-handed mixing orders for the A380 with deliveries for the 787. My bad

That said, I'm far from convinced that the 850 orders the 787 has today constitutes "definitely profitable" in the terms you described in your earlier post. "Questionably" perhaps.
A number of analysts suggest that the order number required for that is in the 1000 to 1100 region.

It will unquestionably get there earlier than the A380 will, in my mind. So we won't argue there..

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 48):
With the A380, my gut feel is that at least 1 more derivative (freighter, NEO, stretch, you name it) needs to be launched (and embraced by EK) for it to reach the break even point.

We won't argue on this either.

Rgds

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net