Boeing 747-8i, further orders in sight after Lufti?

[keesje]

Entry into service is closing in. Don't know how far Boeing is with production preparations. Only 20 aircraft ordered since launch 3 yrs ago. Little / no official updates from neither Boeing or Lufthansa.. Will Lufthansa accept a sole operator situation? Any rumors / opinions on this project?

http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRHEFT/FRHeft07/FRH0702/FR0702g1.JPG

[Dysag]

You can put lipstick on a dog ... but it's still a dog.
Even Boeing doesn't believe in more orders except freighters.
Will there be ANY deliveries of the passenger a/c? Ask DLH. I doubt it.
The first 747 commercial service was nearly 40 years ago.
A good life span is still a life span. RIP 747.

[engineer07]

Dysag,

Well said !

Even with B787 engines the B747 will still be an aircraft designed to safety standards from 40 years ago with a noisy cramped cabin. None of this really matters for a freighter, but passengers deserve better.

[sleeper]

Noisy, yes.
Cramped cabin? That is debatable. You can have the best , new, airliner in the world. If you put in to much seats than even that one feels cramped! :-)

[clipstone1]

and stil the best place to fly is the upper deck of a sleeper seat 744, with only 20 seats up there it's like being in a private jet.....unlike being in a business class section of a A380

the problem with being on the main deck (which on a 380 is either deck) is that there's too many people (and crew) wandering about with places to go ahead and behind you, on the upper deck, there's no one wandering anywhere....total bliss and a shame when the 744 finally exits the Oz route for the major carriers like BA, QF, SQ, CX (not including TG since they didn't have flat beds)

[Wizofoz]

Emirates have consistantly said they would buy a considerable number of 747-8is IF the aeroplane could take 400 pax DXB-LAX. The original, shorter aircraft would have done so. The current spec is short about 300Nm. A little bit of tweaking and it will get there.

[armchairpilot94116]

747 is still my fav for long flights

[B772]

There are a number of carriers still waiting for Boeing to 'finalise' the B747-8I. They are also watching the progress of the A380 very closely. There are 2 airlines who have ordered the A380 who may cancel their orders before the end of the year and order the B747-8I instead due to the 'shrinkage' of the market.

[engineer07]

armchairpilot

You have obviously not flown on the A380 yet ? Especially on the upper deck in businness class the A380 is remarquable - very quiet and very comfortable. I am pretty sure that the standard layout for most carriers on the A380 is going to become exclusively premium classes on the upper deck - already the case for EK and QF and SQ will soon go the same way.

[BOEING777X]

Will there be ANY deliveries of the passenger a/c? Ask DLH. I doubt it.



:confused:

Well, I have recent emails from Lufthansa (fleet management and BOD) stating that they WILL take ALL of their 747-8I's on order.

Further, you can bet you buck the buyers of the 747-8I VIP WILL take delivery too.

To believe otherwise is being naive otherwise Boeing would not still be offering the airplane for sale. :ugh:

[mutt]

you can bet you buck the buyers of the 747-8I VIP WILL take delivery too...... Only if they deliver on time! The buyers of these aircraft have sufficient funds that compensation means nothing, they just want the product!

Mutt

[BOEING777X]

Funds they may have, no doubt - but the only next comparable sized airplane is the A380 - so even if the 747-8I is delayed (which is inevitable due to the strike), they wont exactly have the option of going to get a substitute any sooner.

[mutt]

What about the 744 or the 380? They are valid options....

Mutt

[BOEING777X]

If a VIP customer had ordered the 747-8I, firstly s/he cant buy a 747-400 new because its no longer on sale. Further, it would make no sense to buy a second hand one either as its not as fuel efficient as other newer widebodies like the 777-200LR/-300ER.

As for the A380, production is pretty much accounted for until 2014, and 747-8I EIS was originally slated for late 2010.

Neither of them are viable options if thats the size (large) airplane that they are seeking.

[mutt]

second hand one either as its not as fuel efficient.. Would you consider this a factor in deciding on a VIP aircraft of that size? I dont~!

As for the A380, you might be surprised to learn that they are available much earlier than 2014, especially if you only want one.

The delivery date of the 747-8 was a major deciding factor, if the dates cant be met, customers will look at other options!

Mutt

[BOEING777X]

Would you consider this a factor in deciding on a VIP aircraft of that size?

Perhaps you dont, but others indeed do, otherwise there would be zero orders for the 747-8I as a VIP model. :suspect:

Yes, you probably can get an A380 but I believe that after the first A380VIP is delivered in 2010, there arent any immediate positions available, although that could well change if customers change delivery dates etc.

[mutt]

Perhaps you dont, but others indeed do, otherwise there would be zero orders for the 747-8I as a VIP model.... Nope, there would be at least one :):)

Now if you find the other groups who have purchased VIP B747-8 aircraft, you can ask them what was their primary selection criteria.

Mutt

[BOEING777X]

^

I could indeed divulge it had that info not been proprietary ;)

[mutt]

not been proprietary.... Last time i checked this was an anonymous forum.....

Mutt

[BOEING777X]

True, but I have to respect the wishes of the parties I work with/for :ok:

[The AvgasDinosaur]

IMHO Boeing can't afford to drop the B-747-8I as the VVIP sales up to 9 now I believe are all for the Middle East, and Boeing won't want (CAN'T) afford to upset all those important people whose influence extends far beyond the single hull 747-8VIP they have on order. Huge current and future orders would be at stake. Boeing will not bite the hands that feed them.
Be lucky
David

[Rainboe]

Huge current and future orders would be at stake.
They're not exactly falling over themselves to get orders in for this dinosaur, are they? And with this recession? The 787, 777, A330, 350 and 380 will have the market. At some stage the 747, lovely beast that it is, really has to be taken to the vets and be put away kindly!

[The AvgasDinosaur]

They need not necessarily be 747 orders but Boeing orders in general that would be adversely affected by a cancellation.
Be lucky
David

[BOEING777X]

The 787, 777, A330, 350 and 380 will have the market.

?

The A380 has mustered just 200 sales after a decade on sale - the 747-8, both I/F have amassed over 50% of that total in just three years.

The A380, like the 747-8I are both stuck in a contracting niche...

[Rainboe]

The 380 time will come when the world comes out of this recession. At that time, the 747 design will be over 45 years old, the 380 will be stretched as the wing is designed to take, and its economics for mass market travel will be untouchable. Good though they are, 2 x 777 against 1 x 380 is no match.

[chornedsnorkack]

The current economic situation - economic crisis AND fall of fuel prices - seems to be the worst combination for A380, though.

[Skipness One Echo]

Perspective check oh panicking people! The 747 was born as the arse fell out of the world economy in the 70s. The A380 seems to be working well with Singapore and Emirates are keen to get started ASAP. Heathrow also will soon see the A380 in BA colours.
The current model is the 'A' model, it was always designed to stretch, much like the B777-200 was. Contrary to todays headlines the world is NOT ending (!)
Let's not do the primary school "Boeing" V "Airbus" namecalling. It'll settle into service well and I am looking forward to riding one soon.

Horses for courses peeps, let's alse remember the 737 is actually older than the 747 and is going strong. The question is whether the revamped 747 is a match for the competition rather than the actual age of the 747-100.....

[BOEING777X]

The 380 time will come when the world comes out of this recession.


So where were the orders in the last 10-12 years when the industry enjoyed the boom time? :confused:

Thats not to say the A380 is not needed - for some markets, it certainly is.

The problem however, is that fragmentation and development of smaller airports as opposed to investment in congested hubs makes the A380 a less attractive proposition when you have the likes of the A330, A350, 777 and 787 being able to fly virtually unrestricted to any airport - the same cannot be, and will never be said for the A380, and thats why the prospect of a stretched A380 seems even less plausible.

:ok:

[chornedsnorkack]

when you have the likes of the A330, A350, 777 and 787 being able to fly virtually unrestricted to any airport - the same cannot be, and will never be said for the A380, and thats why the prospect of a stretched A380 seems even less plausible.

Which restrictions do you think apply?

A330 does have 79,8 m span, while the others are under 65 m. But even A330, B777 and B787 have over 60 m wingspan, except 787-3 which has 52 m span and also is awfully delayed.

As for wing loading, the huge A380 wing, with 845 sq m, gives it a wing loading lower than what 777-300ER has. So A380 can fly slow on approach and takeoff and operate from short runways.

As for pavement loading, A380 has 4 main legs, while B777 has 2.

Regarding A380-900, since very much of the stretch capacity is already built into A380-800, the stretch would give extra capacity at very little extra price.

[Whitehatter]

Stretch ability is already 'built in' to the A380 wing. Just as Boeing built it into the original 757 wing (and bungled it by not coming to market sooner IMO).

The proposed A380-900 would not need any surgery to the wing itself beyond adaptation to any uprated or updated power that Airbus wants to offer.

I will probably get shot down for this, but Boeing's major mistake with the 748i is not offering a power choice. Exclusivity with GENx makes it a little more difficult to sell to airlines who have ordered the Trent 1000 for the 787, or the Trent XWB for the A350. It jacks up costs having to introduce a new engine family, especially for smaller outfits. It doesn't apply so much to freight dogs as they won't be buying either midrange aircraft anyway for many years.

[Rainboe]

The problem however, is that fragmentation and development of smaller airports as opposed to investment in congested hubs makes the A380 a less attractive proposition when you have the likes of the A330, A350, 777 and 787 being able to fly virtually unrestricted to any airport - the same cannot be, and will never be said for the A380, and thats why the prospect of a stretched A380 seems even less plausible.

This shows a very blinkered view of 'regional point to point operations are the only way to make money!'. A very US view! US airlines have led the way with profitable operations for years (not)! BA has not retreated to 'Fortress London' only, Emirates and SIA don't really do 'point to point'. Face it, the big airlines buying big equipment have limited connection with the US market, and none with US carriers. The A380 will have a healthy long term market with non-US carriers, as it is already demonstrating. BA will eventually have over 50 (they don't know it yet!), Etihad, Emirates and SIA will be the giant operators of them. Many airlines are finding 777 small and not efficient for the future- it does not have the longhaul clout and appeal of the A380. The US airlines will continue operating light twins against other airlines big stuff! The future 747 just won't cut it, the 777 won't either. The 787 will be a great success for the thinner routes. But the 380 is what European and Asian markets will want.

[BOEING777X]

I want what you're smoking Sir: if you think my view was "blinkered", I cant yet think of an apt description of yours, except to say its so utterly wrong, its actually funny. :eek:


Emirates and SIA don't really do 'point to point'


Of course - except SQ flies to NYC from SIN nonstop on the A345, that is the epitome of point to point.

EK, which has been hit by the Boeing strike, was due to launch DXB-LAX/SFO using 777-200LR's.

Granted, P2P doesnt have to mean JUST long distances, where do you think LCC's emerged from?

Many airlines are finding 777 small and not efficient

Really? Please explain why the 777 has a bigger backlog than the A380, not to mention a bigger customer base and is more profitable a program than the A380 can ever dream of being. :ugh:

longhaul clout and appeal of the A380

Yes, thats why ILFC CEO S. Udvar-Hazy slammed the A380 as having "dismal" cargo capability since it cant carry much given the extra pax/baggage on board :}

[Rainboe]

Well, let's start with 'smoking'- I don't smoke....anything. If we're going to involve ourselves with a discussion, how about setting an example and keeping it courteous? And we're adults, let's leave out the smileys.

Now, I think you have a very blinkered American-centred view which is regarded abroad as short sighted (myopic beyond US borders!). The rest of the world likes big aeroplanes, that's where the bulk of the 60s design 747 (which I flew for 18 years) were sold- non US. Nothing bigger than 777 suits the US market. The American airlines compete abroad with 767, 757 and 777. It loks, and is regarded, as 'cheap' from the POV of foreign impressions. And now, the big longhaul airlines are taking to the 380. Nothing will beat a single 380 on the Europe-Gulf (not the Gulf of Mexico!)-Far East, Australia and South Africa. 2 B777s still don't compare. As the world comes out of recession in a few years, the 380 will come into its own. Not to say the 787 will not eat up 60% of the middle market, but the 777 will then be a 20 year old aeroplane. If all Boeing can come up with then to compete with the 380 is a near 50 year old design, then it will be sad to see the company that brought us mass market travel throwing something so ancient into the market against the 380. We have seen Boeing goes in for 'spoiler' designs- the joke of the 'Sonic Cruiser' still reverberates! But flogging a dead program like the 747? Please!

All the European airlines plus Gulf airlines plus Far East airlines are operating hub and spoke. PtPs are very minor operations. American airlines have yet to show international PtPs prove profitable. Are any making money? It's generally expected a big one is going to go under soon.

A stretched 380 should manage more cargo. It is primarily a passenger vehicle. The 777 has had trouble with cargo- we used to manage far more on a 747 than our 77s could take on long range.

The 380 is still at a very early stage of its development. The 747 nearly closed Boeing down more than once and took years to get going. Considering its step forward in capability, the 380 is doing well, it's a long term program. Great though it is, the ageing 777 just does not have the same passenger appeal. I would always chose it over the 777 given the choice.

[BOEING777X]

Sure, no problem, I'll leave out the smileys, solely used to make the discussion light hearted.

Aside from the fact you didnt respond to my other prior points, I'll attempt to provide some opposing/differing views to your post.

The rest of the world likes big aeroplanes

Perhaps they do - empirical evidence of orders over the last 30 years shows seat count falling per airplane, meaning more orders for twin engine, long haul jets, not bigger ones.

Nothing will beat a single 380 on the Europe-Gulf

For mass transport, I dont disagree. However, airlines are also conscience of keeping slots at key hubs to provide flexibility in frequencies - (part of the reason BA/AA say they wont divest slots for ATI immunity etc.)

However, to suggest the A380 is the answer to most routes, as you allude (unless I interpret you incorrectly), is wrong - the fact that there are more twin aisle, twinjet orders and in service is ample evidence that flexibility and frequencies is more important than mass transport between two destinations.

Passengers will always want choice of when to travel.

but the 777 will then be a 20 year old aeroplane

Yet the likes of the 777-300ER is racking up orders far more than the A380 has, despite the fact the 777-300ER has been around for 50% less time than the former.

Age means very little. The A320 is over 20 years old and sells very, very well indeed - as does the even older 737.


The 777 has had trouble with cargo- we used to manage far more on a 747 than our 77s could take on long range.

That depends on configuration - I dont agree with that (blanket?) statement, because of the carriers I have worked with/for that have 777's and 747's, they'll argue the exact opposite.


But flogging a dead program like the 747? Please!

Dead? Methinks not. There have been more 747 orders (pax & F) compared to the A380 since the latters launch in 2000.

To bring us back full circle on this thread, the 747 may do well as a freighter as opposed to pax airplane (the orders show that) - but to suggest its a dead horse is nonsense.

The cost alone and ROI on the 747-8I/F will be reached far sooner than will the A380, if ever.

Fragmentation is a fact - its not "US-centric". The orders for the 777, 787, A330, A350 are clear indicators that flexibility is critical.

Whatever way its dressed up, the A380 is not everyones cup of tea - and thats by and large why the 747-8I has struggled for sales because it doesnt provide a flexible solution as the other jets named above. They require fare less fuel for the same journey and produce far higher yields than any A380 configuration.

[Rainboe]

Well what point did I miss? The 777 pprogram is a mature aeroplane. The A380 is still in the equivalent of the 747-100 stage- a limited payload underpowered first stage. When it is stretched and powered appropriately, it will do the job. Look at the faith in it with Asian and Gulf airlines. The European airlines haven't even started yet. The program is not in a willy waving contest with the 777, which holds the 'larger medium segment'. They do different things. The 747 is 'large'. It will still be a near 50 year old design in 5 or 6 years, and it will have commensurate passenger appeal! The world deserves better- it has it in the 380.

[Skipness One Echo]

BOEING 777X : Methinks no argument will get through to someone with a Boeing username. You might as well try and argue to a Celtic fan that Rangers are a better team. ( Or Man Utd v Man City : Insert local allegory )

It's worth remembering that Bob Crandall was fond of saying that putting the 767 into long haul would kill off the 747. To an extent that's true, but the the 777-300 became the 747 replacment so the market for LARGE aircraft is slightly different from point to point smaller ones. There's clearly room for both, the A380 has been proving itself on the line for less than a year but is now becoming quite the aircraft to fly on. Every time I see the thing it's noticeably quieter and more agile than the corresponding B747-400s powering out of Heathrow.
I agree that the engine exclusivity is not the best thing to have on your aircraft. It worked for the B777-300ER as it soon became evident that the machine was incredibly capable, in a different league from the A340-600 performance wise. The same cannot be claimed of the new B747 and the A380.

[BOEING777X]

The A380 is still in the equivalent of the 747-100 stage- a limited payload underpowered first stage.

When it is stretched and powered appropriately, it will do the job.

Then one must ask whether Airbus did the right thing to launch the -800 when the bigger version would have been more to the marketplaces' liking, no?

Look at the faith in it with Asian and Gulf airlines.

Perhaps a moot point to some, but the M.East carriers have a vested interest given stakes in EADS by their respective governments.


It will still be a near 50 year old design in 5 or 6 years


What does that have to do with the price of bread?

As noted prior, the A320 and 737 families are all over 20 years old and continue to sell well thanks to their evolution.

To dismiss the 747-8I/F family which has racked up over half the orders the A380 has in less than half the time of its existence is hilarious.


The world deserves better- it has it in the 380.

Indeed - and the poor orderbook shows just how much of the world wants it.

Skipness -

Methinks no argument will get through to someone with a Boeing username

Its just a log on name of an airplane I happen to like. Doesnt mean much else. :ok:

As i stated prior, I agree, there are routes for the A380's presence, its not suited to the majority of those currently flown by other longer ranged jets. If it was, where are the orders for it?

I agree that the engine exclusivity is not the best thing to have on your aircraft.

Although the A350XWB doesnt have a second choice engine yet, it certainly hasnt hurt RR by being the defacto monopoly engine of choice.

Equally, of the 70+ orders for the 747-8F, the customers knew there'd only be the GEnx on it, yet still bought it. Exclusivity isnt that important anymore - efficiency is.

There was a time when the likes of Cathay Pacific wouldnt order an airplane if it didnt have RR engines on it - yet it has 10x 747-8F's on order, and something like orders/leases for around 30 777-300ER's too.

I apologise if this has inadvertently skewed to a 777/A380 thread, but for a second time to bring the thread back to its origins, whether the 747-8I sells or not, the saving grace is that sales of the -8F continue and the entire project is a mere fraction of the ballooned costs of the A380, which ironically has no other model to supplement/complement it.

As a pax airplane, no doubt, the A380 is good, but its a relic whose longevity will not match that of the 747.

We can quip all we like about how "old" the 747 design is, but the fact remains its dual function as pax/freighter is far better than the obsolete design in the A380 that, after less than ten years from concept to reality has inhereted a marketplace that is continually contracting, not expanding - hence why EADS will almost never break even.

[Rainboe]

Well, the only way to find out is to wait 10 years! The 380 is developing similarly to the early 747 program, but without the engines breaking down all over the world. I saw that program from the beginning and I see little difference now apart from the 380 settling in far better and actually flying full as opposed to the 747 which flew empty. I remember passengering in it in the early 70s (curiously during a severe recession-73- when it wasn't selling very well) and having whole cabin sections to myself. Just as the 747 then had competitors being developed (DC10 and ....dare I say...Tristar) which were supposed to be 'better' and more sensibly sized, the 380 has a competitor in the 777-300. The supposedly 'better' planes never lasted then for a variety of reasons. But the 380 has the 'big' market to itself. I'm afraid size wins in the absolute economy stakes.
As i stated prior, I agree, there are routes for the A380's presence, its not suited to the majority of those currently flown by other longer ranged jets. If it was, where are the orders for it?
Most of the orders have come so far from 3 airlines- 2 Gulf and SIA. The rest of the world has barely started.

Maybe one day someone will resurrect this thread for examination! But for now, your tone needs 'toning' down. Your frantic support for the 777 seems a bit hysterical. Do you have a 'thing' about it?

[BOEING777X]

Most of the orders have come so far from 3 airlines- 2 Gulf and SIA. The rest of the world has barely started.


Stands to good reason and ask why they havent yet ordered despite it being around for almost a decade. Simple fact is that its not designed for every customer.

Sales of the more popular twins I mentioned have far more broader appeal.

The fact that both A350 and 787 have had rapid sales success is because airlines dont want to wait a decade and then make a move to order - better to get ahead and queue up first.

Frantic support for the 777? Not quite!

Same could apply to your support of the A380, but I digress...

[mutt]

but the M.East carriers have a vested interest given stakes in EADS by their respective governments.. Thats quite a sweeping statement, can you prove it?

Mutt

[chornedsnorkack]

Most of the orders have come so far from 3 airlines- 2 Gulf and SIA.

Which ones?

In Persian Gulf, there are Emirates (58 firm), Etihad (10 firm), Qatar (5 firm) and prince Al-Walid (1 firm).

Elsewhere there are Qantas (20 firm), Singapore (19 firm), Lufthansa (15 firm), Air France (12 firm), BA (12 firm), ILFC (10 firm), Korean (8 firm), Thai (6 firm), Malaysia (6 firm), Virgin (6 firm), China Southern (5 firm), Kingfisher (5 firm).

Emirates, Etihad and SIA combined hold 87 orders, so a definite minority.

[BOEING777X]

Thats quite a sweeping statement, can you prove it?

For at least one, yes, while the last reference is for Qatar, whose deal didnt come to fruition.

Dubai Buys 3.12% Stake in EADS (http://www.arabnews.com/?page=6&section=0&article=98248&d=6&m=7&y=2007)

Khaleej Times Online - Dubai firm eyes stake in EADS (http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?col=&section=business&xfile=data/business/2007/May/business_May594.xml)

Qatar in talks to buy EADS stake - Transportation - ArabianBusiness.com (http://www.arabianbusiness.com/8196-qatar-in-talks-to-buy-eads-stake?ln=en)

[mutt]

So just because DIC/QIA bought shares in EADS, you have decided that the "airlines" have a vested interest in buying Airbus! Thats quite a conclusion!

So what about the B777, B787 and B748 orders destined for the Gulf?

Mutt

[BOEING777X]

I havent decided anything Sir, you're putting words into my mouth.

I suggest you do some background reseach into the Middle East/its relationship with EADS. :)

[Skipness One Echo]

BOEING 777X lists his interests as Boeing & FleetBuzz.com

There is NO point in engaging this man in rational argument. "Yaaaay I LOVE Boeing, they're fantastic, amazing, wonderful etc etc."

There's not a single pro Airbus fact that will get in the way of this enthusiastic plane spotting love affair.... My God this place is turning into airliners.net (!)

[mutt]

Perhaps a moot point to some, but the M.East carriers have a vested interest given stakes in EADS by their respective governments. These are your words, not mine! So what exactly did you mean to say?

If you look at my location, you might actually notice that I know the Middle East quite well.

Mutt

[BOEING777X]

Mutt, lets look at it this way - DIC/Dubai (whatever terminology is deemed apt/suitable) invested in EADS for a reason - its entirely plausible then that the Dubai owned airline, Emirates would want to see EADS succeed given that its Govt has invested in the parent of Airbus.

Afterall, they (EK) are now one of the biggest (if not the biggest) customers for both of Airbus' flagship models, the A380 and A350XWB.

Again, that is their decision to have a vested interest - not mine as you alluded to earlier - all I did was highlight it. :)

[VAFFPAX]

Or perhaps it's just that Airbus listens to its customers and is happy to give them what they want? Like the showers in the front on the 380 (even if that blew the electric system the first time round).

Or perhaps it's more economical for them to use the 380 for the time being?

S.

[mutt]

So you are basically trying to tell us that the A380 is crap and that the only reason EK purchased the aircraft was due to a vested interested!

Didnt you notice that the Dubai owned airline FlyDubai is launching with B737 aircraft!

You really have to rename Fleetbuzz to BoeingBuzz........

Mutt

[BOEING777X]

So you are basically trying to tell us that the A380 is crap


:confused:

I dont think I inferred that in the least Sir.

[Flight Safety]

Thought I'd add to the debate by bringing up something I tried to bring up a few months ago, but was sent to Jet Blast instead. These points are directly related to the subject of this thread.

I'm a business guy and I take note when a company changes the marketing strategy for one of its products, as this usually indicates that something important has changed. I took note when Airbus altered the marketing strategy of the A380 from a high density hub-to-hub 555 seat aircraft, to a spacious more luxurious aircraft seating fewer passengers, with each having more space, amenities, and comfort. The new marketing effort further stated the 747-8i was inferior in this new "fewer passengers with more space" model.

The question is why did this marketing shift occur? I had no answer until I finally read a Flight Global article where Tim Clark (CEO Emirates) said the current A380 (in early operational service) demonstrated an endurance of only 13 to 13.5 hours with full payload. Those of you who pilot long haul should understand EXACTLY what that means.

As to whether the 747-8i will sell, that depends on the success of its competition. I decided months ago that the A380 and the 747-8i will not compete in the same market. Due to the range problems of the current A380, it will not be a successful competitor in the high density low cost international air travel market. However the 747-8i should still be competitive in this low cost high density market, which it served so well for many years. The success of the 747-8i in this market depends on how flexible and cost efficient it is compared to the 777, 787, and A350WXB, which are its true competitors in this market.

It's possible even a stretched A380 may not be competitive in this market. It will be more costly to stretch the A380 than some think, since the current wing failed just short of ultimate load during the static tests. Therefore the A380 cannot be stretched without a new wing. Some debated years ago about whether a full double-decker aircraft could be manufactured light enough to be fuel efficient, a debate Boeing had long ago when it was first designing the 747. The current endurance issue suggests there's a weight/range problem, and perhaps it's been known for a long time. If this is the case, then even a stretched A380 may not have the range to compete in the low cost high density international air travel market.

I think before long, it's possible we'll be seeing cost sensitive international travelers flying on 747-8is, while less cost sensitive more amenity minded international travelers will be flying on A380s.

[Rainboe]

The 747-100 was just the same with its lower power engines. The 747-200 that followed improved it immensely with higher rated engines. Your analysis appears excellent, but do you think this model A380 is the only one ever to be built? All it takes is uprating the engines early. This is still only the equivalent -100 version of the A380!

The 747 came into service nearly 40 years ago. Going back that time from then, can you imagine flying in 1970 in a design from 1930? There are only so many times you can get the old horse to stand up- eventually you have to take it out and shoot it! The 747 is standing up with extreme difficulty! For passenger appeal, it no longer has it.

[edotabin]

Hi.
Age has been mentioned numerous times as a drawback to the 747-8.
I suppose something brand new will definitely have a certain appeal but I would mention a number of older products that have very successfully competed and fulfilled their roles against brand new designs.

1. VW beetle.
2. VW Golf
3. B-52 bomber. This thing is ancient. Would anyone wish to be nearby when they drop bombs ??
4. F-15 eagle. Very old yet few would question its role as an air superiority fighter.

Anyway, these are just four examples of how older or derivatives of older products and ideas do just fine in today's world.

The main difference between these two planes is very simple: SIZE.
The rest of the arguments are derivatives of that.

The A380 is just plain ugly - This of course is strictly my opinion. This doesn't change the quality of the ride (which I not experienced by the way) nor does it make it more/less economical.

The 747 is near and dear to the hearts of many for obvious reasons. I suppose the
707, DC-10 and L-1011 were near and dear to many as well.

America's image has suffered tremendously for a great number of reasons. Most Europeans always have an air of superiority in the back of their minds. Now the Europeans are saying "We knew you were stupid all along and now this plane is our proof! We are vindicated!" Search your hearts and down deep I think you will have to agree that this is the main crux of this whole conversation/debate.

Boeing had gotten lazy. Airbus came up with some nice models and started capturing the market. Many preferred Airbus for the reason directly above and still others because they were tired of dealing with the same people over and over and over.

All I can say is that those 747s carried me across the Atlantic too many times for me to be either American or European. I just want less turbulence. I HATE HATE HATE HATE turbulence.

[smuff2000]

Flight Safety

As the A380-800 & 900 are I believe due to have the same wing I would imagine that the ultimate load test was done as if the -900 weights and flight loads rather than the -800, then the test does not have to be re-done to certificate the -900.

As an enthusiast only I may however be wrong on that and stand to be corrected.

[BOEING777X]

^

You're right - for future A380 models, computer modelling can predict the load test without the need for a physical test.

When the A380 wing failed below the required 150% margin, it was strengthened but certified after simulations showed that the wing would indeed reach 150%.