Boeing 747-8i, further orders in sight after Lufti?
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Estonia
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most of the orders have come so far from 3 airlines- 2 Gulf and SIA.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thats quite a sweeping statement, can you prove it?
Dubai Buys 3.12% Stake in EADS
Khaleej Times Online - Dubai firm eyes stake in EADS
Qatar in talks to buy EADS stake - Transportation - ArabianBusiness.com
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: ME
Posts: 5,502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
So what about the B777, B787 and B748 orders destined for the Gulf?
Mutt
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 43
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOEING 777X lists his interests as
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 (!)
Boeing & FleetBuzz.com
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 (!)
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: ME
Posts: 5,502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps a moot point to some, but the M.East carriers have a vested interest given stakes in EADS by their respective governments.
If you look at my location, you might actually notice that I know the Middle East quite well.
Mutt
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: OXF
Posts: 428
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Or perhaps it's more economical for them to use the 380 for the time being?
S.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: ME
Posts: 5,502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Didnt you notice that the Dubai owned airline FlyDubai is launching with B737 aircraft!
You really have to rename Fleetbuzz to BoeingBuzz........
Mutt
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: dbgsdfg
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Age and true nature of discussion
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Lincolnshire, UK
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
^
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%.
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%.
