The official end of the Boeing 747, say the airlines.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: PDX
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[Not a pilot] Perhaps the question I should have asked is, do we know the actual pounds of fuel / passenger actually experienced by the operators of the two different airplanes?
I ask about the A380 because the greater fuel consumption was to be offset by carrying more passengers per trip. I'm wondering if B747 operators can round up ~400 passengers more often than A380 customers can round up ~500 passengers.
To answer your good point that B747s could be flying with empty seats, too, my thought was that it would be more likely that the larger capacity airplane would fly with empty seats than that the smaller capacity plane would.
If there is a passenger preference for a twenty-first century design over a 1960s plane, then perhaps there may be more empty seats on the older plane.
I ask about the A380 because the greater fuel consumption was to be offset by carrying more passengers per trip. I'm wondering if B747 operators can round up ~400 passengers more often than A380 customers can round up ~500 passengers.
To answer your good point that B747s could be flying with empty seats, too, my thought was that it would be more likely that the larger capacity airplane would fly with empty seats than that the smaller capacity plane would.
If there is a passenger preference for a twenty-first century design over a 1960s plane, then perhaps there may be more empty seats on the older plane.
Paxing All Over The World
It has only been mentioned in passing but - the cost of running a machine that you own and is fully depreciated - as opposed to one that you are leasing - can be significant.
Even if the primary lease has run it's course, you will have the secondary lease and that could be sufficient (my guess) to tip the balance of financial viability.
I sit to be corrected.
Even if the primary lease has run it's course, you will have the secondary lease and that could be sufficient (my guess) to tip the balance of financial viability.
I sit to be corrected.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: warwickshire
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A little anecdotal perhaps, but both Lufthansa and Singapore have said the A380 burns less fuel per trip (and therefore per seat) than their 744's on the same routes.
Does anyone have fuel burn data for the 380 & 748? I know that a 744 burns around 10 tonnes / hr (obviously it will vary according to various factors such as weight). The 77W (773 ER) burns 20 - 25% less and has roughly the same capacity (slightly less passenger space, more bellyhold capacity). It was reported in Flight that the Lufhansa reports that a 748 has 15% more capacity than a 744 and burns roughly the same amount of fuel. That would make it less fuel efficient that a 77W. The 380 is I believe less efficient than the 787 and possibly 77W. That said the VC10 was less efficient than the 707 but its greater passenger appeal made up for this (at least until oil prices quintupled in 1974).
Cathay reported that fuel accounted for 50% of all operating costs a couple of years ago. OK that included hedging losses but oil was not at its peak for the whole year. At $3.60 / US gallon a 747 will cost $12,000 / hr or $50m p.a. Replacing one with a 77W will save around $10m p.a. Replacing a 744 as it becomes due for D-check is likely to be highly cost effective anf explains why Airbus & Boeing have bouyant order books. Of course if jet fuel prices drop the economics will change. It has been suggested that the a new generation of effectively hybrid jet / props would have been developed fifteen years ago if fuel prices were where they are today at the time but it didn't make sense. It also explains why a large number of old 727 weren't replaced with 757s at the time.
Back to my original point, does anyone have any data as to fuel cost per seat mile (or square metre of cabin space or whatever is the best way to define it) for various types of jet?
Cathay reported that fuel accounted for 50% of all operating costs a couple of years ago. OK that included hedging losses but oil was not at its peak for the whole year. At $3.60 / US gallon a 747 will cost $12,000 / hr or $50m p.a. Replacing one with a 77W will save around $10m p.a. Replacing a 744 as it becomes due for D-check is likely to be highly cost effective anf explains why Airbus & Boeing have bouyant order books. Of course if jet fuel prices drop the economics will change. It has been suggested that the a new generation of effectively hybrid jet / props would have been developed fifteen years ago if fuel prices were where they are today at the time but it didn't make sense. It also explains why a large number of old 727 weren't replaced with 757s at the time.
Back to my original point, does anyone have any data as to fuel cost per seat mile (or square metre of cabin space or whatever is the best way to define it) for various types of jet?
I'm slightly puzzled as to why people are so interested in the cost of depreciation when comparing a B747 v B777 v A380. The capital cost of the aircraft is a sunk cost - asking Toulouse if you can send the aircraft back to the factory in return for a refund of 50% because you've used it for only 50% of the tax authority permitted depreciation period isn't gonna work.
Depreciation is a non-cash accounting charge - it just spreads the accounting recognition of the capital cost over a number of years, so that the company accounts give a fair reflection to shareholders as to how the firm is doing and allowing comparison between different years. The actual capital cost of the aircraft / engines is paid on terms determined by the manufacturer - not the same as IFRS or other accounting rules. Whether an aircraft is spending 12 hours a day up in the air, or 24 hours a day in the desert, Airbus, Boeing, ILFC or anyone else still want their money and will file in court to get their airframe back if money owed is heavily overdue with regards to payment terms.
In assessing whether to continue operating a particular aircraft, would cashflow make more sense as a determinant ? Compare the cash that can be obtained (if any) by leasing an aircraft out with the revenue from ticket sales and the cost of fuel, crew and all other operational matters. Of course, putting an old aircraft into desert storage is an option in case the economics look better a few years in the future.
Delta's / Northwest's DC9s were fully depreciated many many years ago, but they were pensioned off a few years ago for a reason...
Depreciation is a non-cash accounting charge - it just spreads the accounting recognition of the capital cost over a number of years, so that the company accounts give a fair reflection to shareholders as to how the firm is doing and allowing comparison between different years. The actual capital cost of the aircraft / engines is paid on terms determined by the manufacturer - not the same as IFRS or other accounting rules. Whether an aircraft is spending 12 hours a day up in the air, or 24 hours a day in the desert, Airbus, Boeing, ILFC or anyone else still want their money and will file in court to get their airframe back if money owed is heavily overdue with regards to payment terms.
In assessing whether to continue operating a particular aircraft, would cashflow make more sense as a determinant ? Compare the cash that can be obtained (if any) by leasing an aircraft out with the revenue from ticket sales and the cost of fuel, crew and all other operational matters. Of course, putting an old aircraft into desert storage is an option in case the economics look better a few years in the future.
Delta's / Northwest's DC9s were fully depreciated many many years ago, but they were pensioned off a few years ago for a reason...
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I was reading about a paper airline which was convinced that 747s were the way forward, just as everyone else was getting rid of them.
Then I read that they are also proposing the same fares for everyone on each flight, regardless of the time the flight was booked.
So sorry guys, the 747 has had its day!
Then I read that they are also proposing the same fares for everyone on each flight, regardless of the time the flight was booked.
So sorry guys, the 747 has had its day!
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: warwickshire
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, it does make sense, why buy an A380/748 for $300m+ when you can pick up a used 744 for $30m!? Especially if you've not got high usage (and expensive D-checks coming up)
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, it does make sense, why buy an A380/748 for $300m+ when you can pick up a used 744 for $30m!? Especially if you've not got high usage (and expensive D-checks coming up)
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Nashville tx
Age: 67
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOEING 747 A ERA GONE BY!
Iremember when Northwest acquired their first 747-200 in 1975. It was the most beautiful commercial plane in the skies.
The awesome Concorde flew the skies, the flag ship of the two carriers who so proudly flew them. The 747 also the flag ship of carriers whom flew them with pride. The pilots longing to sit in the seat of a Jumbo, the crew, the passengers all wished to ride the great Jumbo of the skies.
Then de-regulation came along in 1979 and changed the airlines forever!
As time rolled on airlines became more distraught to figure out ways to make the profit sheet balance. Airplanes became older, everyone was trying to keep up with each other.
The DC-10, B-707 and L-1011 all great ships, all 3 men crew, was just to much. The outcry for safety, and modernization was at hand. Airlines were scrambling to buy each other out, merge, sell out, down size, become larger, it was a time of roller coaster proportions to say least!
Boeing came out with the newer 747-400 a two man crew, and much more efficient flag ship.....Pilots, crew, passengers all loved it!
For few years Airbus talked about the Super Jumbo, many did not think it would ever take place, but it did. The world seen the First A-380 roll out. It was hard to believe, but it was larger than the ever great B747-400!
Economy set backs, fuel, maintenance, airlines struggle with compliance, FAA, stock holders, and they were looking for answers, and fast. Those powers to be some seen to get rid, of their 747's as there are many just sitting around now, and the price is less than 10% of cost new.
Boeing seen this, and the need for more efficient planes, as did the other manufacturer's. Airlines bitting at the bit to see the planes, and spaces, and price, and delivery, and whom was going to buy what ship and how many.
Then the world seen the B777 and now the B777-300ER which can carry passengers to any point in the world non stop.
The A-380 which can carry more passengers due to its two decks, and larger 4 engines, which makes the passenger millage and efficiency greater for its operators.
The lighter materials used, more redundant systems, more efficient engines, and better and easier maintenance and compliance factors all play into the B-777 and the A-380 long range planes, that put the hold on the B-747-400 which use to be the plane of choice for the airlines.......
With the 777 being able to fly international and met all the requirements of FAA, one engine flight, etc, and with the lower cost of operating, it will be here for years to come.
Many miss or will miss the 4 engines, as they feel it is safer when crossing the pond. The larger international operators are using the 777 and A-380s more and more. While states and smaller operators use and love the B757 and B767 versions. Both also great plane, and modern.
I loved the B-747 and look back on great times, and never will there be a ship any more beautiful than to see the great Jumbo B-747 depart from LAX, or Hong Kong, and other places all over the world.
As freight operators pick them up, they become less and less plane of choice by airlines now.
Could Boeing make changes, to engines, systems, etc to keep it alive, maybe! Will they, who knows, as Boeing like
the airlines are in business to make money, profit, and if carriers wanted a new efficient B-747-1000 to keep up with the A-380 might they do so.
We who have been associated with, pilots, crew, ground, and passengers will always remember and be thankful for that wonderful and un-mistaken sight on the ground and in the sky the AWESOME BOEING 747!
AIRFORCE ONE! B747......
God bless to all .......
Iremember when Northwest acquired their first 747-200 in 1975. It was the most beautiful commercial plane in the skies.
The awesome Concorde flew the skies, the flag ship of the two carriers who so proudly flew them. The 747 also the flag ship of carriers whom flew them with pride. The pilots longing to sit in the seat of a Jumbo, the crew, the passengers all wished to ride the great Jumbo of the skies.
Then de-regulation came along in 1979 and changed the airlines forever!
As time rolled on airlines became more distraught to figure out ways to make the profit sheet balance. Airplanes became older, everyone was trying to keep up with each other.
The DC-10, B-707 and L-1011 all great ships, all 3 men crew, was just to much. The outcry for safety, and modernization was at hand. Airlines were scrambling to buy each other out, merge, sell out, down size, become larger, it was a time of roller coaster proportions to say least!
Boeing came out with the newer 747-400 a two man crew, and much more efficient flag ship.....Pilots, crew, passengers all loved it!
For few years Airbus talked about the Super Jumbo, many did not think it would ever take place, but it did. The world seen the First A-380 roll out. It was hard to believe, but it was larger than the ever great B747-400!
Economy set backs, fuel, maintenance, airlines struggle with compliance, FAA, stock holders, and they were looking for answers, and fast. Those powers to be some seen to get rid, of their 747's as there are many just sitting around now, and the price is less than 10% of cost new.
Boeing seen this, and the need for more efficient planes, as did the other manufacturer's. Airlines bitting at the bit to see the planes, and spaces, and price, and delivery, and whom was going to buy what ship and how many.
Then the world seen the B777 and now the B777-300ER which can carry passengers to any point in the world non stop.
The A-380 which can carry more passengers due to its two decks, and larger 4 engines, which makes the passenger millage and efficiency greater for its operators.
The lighter materials used, more redundant systems, more efficient engines, and better and easier maintenance and compliance factors all play into the B-777 and the A-380 long range planes, that put the hold on the B-747-400 which use to be the plane of choice for the airlines.......
With the 777 being able to fly international and met all the requirements of FAA, one engine flight, etc, and with the lower cost of operating, it will be here for years to come.
Many miss or will miss the 4 engines, as they feel it is safer when crossing the pond. The larger international operators are using the 777 and A-380s more and more. While states and smaller operators use and love the B757 and B767 versions. Both also great plane, and modern.
I loved the B-747 and look back on great times, and never will there be a ship any more beautiful than to see the great Jumbo B-747 depart from LAX, or Hong Kong, and other places all over the world.
As freight operators pick them up, they become less and less plane of choice by airlines now.
Could Boeing make changes, to engines, systems, etc to keep it alive, maybe! Will they, who knows, as Boeing like
the airlines are in business to make money, profit, and if carriers wanted a new efficient B-747-1000 to keep up with the A-380 might they do so.
We who have been associated with, pilots, crew, ground, and passengers will always remember and be thankful for that wonderful and un-mistaken sight on the ground and in the sky the AWESOME BOEING 747!
AIRFORCE ONE! B747......
God bless to all .......
and now the B777-300ER which can carry passengers to any point in the world non stop.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 57
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by skystar320
Does anyone else think the A380's are a POS? Give me a 777 to fly in any day as a passenger!
As a SQ passenger, I'd rather fly in the 777 than the A380
As a SQ passenger, I'd rather fly in the 777 than the A380
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: warwickshire
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a SQ passenger, I'd rather fly in the 777 than the A380
Last edited by giblets; 26th Jun 2012 at 17:11.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and now the B777-300ER which can carry passengers to any point in the world non stop.
Sorry, but even the 777-200LR (which has considerably more range than the 300ER) can't do, say, London-Auckland non-stop.
Sorry, but even the 777-200LR (which has considerably more range than the 300ER) can't do, say, London-Auckland non-stop.
How many stops were needed on the kangaroo routes in the early days of the 747? 3,4? Shows how we have moved on, even with different generations of the same type.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "How many stops were needed on the kangaroo routes in the early days of the 747? 3,4? Shows how we have moved on, even with different generations of the same type."
This had more to do with the need to pick up/drop off pax along the route as overall pax numbers and frequencies of flights were much lower than today. Crew duty times were also shorter. Later on when the former increased and the latter were renegotiated, it was brought down to 2 stops: usually BAH and SIN. Later B747 versions allowed this to be reduced this to just one stop. SQ were the first to do LHR-SIN nonstop, the other carriers followed suit, and this remains the case today.
This had more to do with the need to pick up/drop off pax along the route as overall pax numbers and frequencies of flights were much lower than today. Crew duty times were also shorter. Later on when the former increased and the latter were renegotiated, it was brought down to 2 stops: usually BAH and SIN. Later B747 versions allowed this to be reduced this to just one stop. SQ were the first to do LHR-SIN nonstop, the other carriers followed suit, and this remains the case today.
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 5th Jul 2012 at 00:23.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: England
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone else think the A380's are a POS? Give me a 777 to fly in any day as a passenger!
As a SQ passenger, I'd rather fly in the 777 than the A380.
As a SQ passenger, I'd rather fly in the 777 than the A380.
As someone fortunate to fly mainly in JCL on SQ, give me the 77W and that mini cabin over that fat, ugly, soul-less* double deck thing any day of the week.
*Not that 777's have any 'character' themselves, just better than the fat things.