QF 747-8

[Keg]

Word on the street is that the 747-8 is a 'no-brainer' for QF- according to third hand rumours attributed to various management pilots! :eek: ;) Orders may still be 12 months away but some see it and the 777 as a natural replacement for the classic and the older 744's in the QF fleet!

Lots of water to pass under the bridge yet but I thought it'd be nice to have something positive about QF for a change! :ok:

[Scumfish]

This is exactly what Qantas management should be striving for. They should never have ordered the A380 due to the costs of placing the necessary infrastructure in place whereas the 747/800 carries only slightly less passengers with a lower seat cost and the company is already set up for 747 operations.
I have also heard through my business aquantances that the Qantas board is giving serious consideration to replacing Mr. Dixon with Sunfish, due to his obvious impeccable management skills, on the proviso that he cleans up his public dialogue.

[Al E. Vator]

No, no, they should never have ordered the 707 due to the costs of placing the necessary infrastructure in place. Should have stuck with the Constellation, no the DC4. :rolleyes:

[Buster Hyman]

Is it true they come with a reduced MTOW...on account of the lightly paid future operators of the type?

(Oooh...that's gotta sting!):ouch:

[J430]

Its been ages since I have posted here, however, I must say its great to see some real entertainment at last. And no this is not directed at Kegs original post.

J:ok:

[B A Lert]

Scumfish has made us all laugh!:) :p


I have also heard through my business aquantances that the Qantas board is giving serious consideration to replacing Mr. Dixon with Sunfish

I'd like to see that.

obvious impeccable management skills

I'd like to see them too.

he cleans up his public dialogue

Would like to see that three.

[Taildragger67]

Would probably be logical in terms of slotting into the fleet, capacity-wise. That is:

737-800
787-8
787-9
777-300
747-8
A380

… but it’s still probably more airframe/engine combinations than you’d probably go for by choice.

That said, if there is the commonality between the 787 family and the 747-8 which Boeing is crowing about (and quite possibly some cockpit commonality amongst 747-8, 777 and 787) then maybe… And if they go for Trents on everything (except 777LRs), that increases engine commonality… so possibly.

Wonder what Mr Boeing might be tempted to throw in as a sweetener for a loyal launch customer…

Actually given that BA and Cathay have both been mentioned re 747-8, maybe there’s some sort of oneworld deal in the works. I know nussink – just speculation on my part.

Would there be a place for A330?

Nice new toy, though, Keg??!!

[Mr. Boeing]

That's for me to know and you to find out.

[botero]

I understood that the 747-8 was only being offerred with the GEnx engines. So I guess if QF choose that engine for the 787 then ther are some economies of scale that could work for them.

[Taildragger67]

I understood that the 747-8 was only being offerred with the GEnx engines. So I guess if QF choose that engine for the 787 then ther are some economies of scale that could work for them.

Yep I think you might be right - further stuffing economies from reduced airframe/engine combos.

Sorry Mr B - I should've said Mr Baseler...

[4SPOOLED]

The stretched version of the A380 looks nice, but its really not a winner in my books and doesnt have that majestic grace of a 74.

Go the 748 i say! bit like the ole 250 ticker in the fords, old slug which is proven to be a nice well Engine with a bit of a face lift every now and then but still essentially the same engine that was released in the 60's. HFV6 in the Commodores, what a rattly peice of garbage. All well and good to talk about advancements in technology and all that nonsense, but at the end of the day, if it aint broken dont fix it, and if you can improve on something that has already shown itself capable and cost effective, then why start from scratch?

[Going Boeing]

Would probably be logical in terms of slotting into the fleet, capacity-wise. That is:
737-800
787-8
787-9
777-300
747-8
A380
… but it’s still probably more airframe/engine combinations than you’d probably go for by choice.


If you substitute the B787-10 for the B777-300 on your list then it would look even more impressive - one less aircraft type and improved crew/engineering efficiencies. The B787-10 is claimed (by Boeing) to have seat/kilometer costs 10% lower than the A380 - very impressive if true.

[Taildragger67]

GB... my take on it is that Seattle are a bit loathe to run with the 787-10 as it would probably kill the 777; but I agree with your idea.

I'd been thinking since they started the 787 programme that it would form the basis of an entirely new product range. The 757/767 were due to end their run, so that's where they started; the 747 needed a facelift, maybe we're seeing that; Toulouse is already looking at a new single-aisle, so that would've been next; then the 777 (by then, a 25-y-o design) would've come round for replacement by a 787-family derivative. Maybe EK and SQ (who are the onees pressing for the 787-10, despite large 777 fleets) are just mucking the timing and order up a bit.

[ennui]

I understand that EK are pushing for the 787-10 because they ALREADY consider the 777 "old technology" and are looking at a replacement aircraft!

[TineeTim]

Some interesting thoughts. I'll go out on a limb- QF will not buy the 777. Never. They've had plenty of opportunities and the bean counters say the numbers don't work. The only one that seems a shot is the 200LR. With fuel they way it is, I doubt the economics of ULR aircraft will stand up to scrutiny. I think a 787-10 is much more likely. As for whether Boeing will build it, read Baseler's Blog on the web site and he's on record as saying he thinks they will and I think QF will buy it, along with more 380s and 748s for the long haul fleet. Cheers

[TIMMEEEE]

I hold in my hot little hands an Airbus brochure entitled "The Future has Arrived" which was in the entry to the Constellation Cafe on the QF Jet Base.

Basically this Airbus propoganda brochure really attempts very unconvincingly to stick the knife into the B747-800.
It basically has a photo of a QF A380 on the cover and shows unproven statistics of the A380 compared to the B744 as well as B748.

Airbus claim it to have a 12% cost advantage to a B748 for a 6000nm sector and also state that Boeing's cost analysis for the B748 are "incredible".

Isnt this pretty brazen from an aircraft manufacturer that has never produced one aircraft that lived up to design specifications.......ever?

Jesus H !! When you hear about a company like Air France being launch customer for the B777-300ER and then publicly stating how thrilled they are when they find it to be about 3% more efficient in terms of fuel and range above what Boeing predicted then you really have to sit up and take notice.

Besides, the A380 is down from about 550 pax to 450 pax now......not a huge improvement over the B748 in my book.
Maybe the stretch A380 will offer an improvement but that is years away.

[Buster Hyman]

With fuel they way it is, I doubt the economics of ULR aircraft will stand up to scrutiny.
Okay, I know your just a 2 year old Martian, but I would've thought that an ULR would make economic sense in this current climate. :confused:

[Going Boeing]

From Asia Pacific Aviation Business Magazine

Airbus A380F Vs B747-8F

The A380F will enter service in the third quarter of 2008 and the B747-8F the following year.
Airbus believes that Boeing based the new generation 747-8 on a 30 year old airframe design and while the European company does not feel an "old" aircraft (the Intercontinental) can threaten the A380 airliner, conversions of older aircraft account for a substantial proportion of the aircraft entering service as freighters, and the challenge that the B747-8F poses to the A380F concerns the company. Still Airbus does not forsee changes to the A380F in response to the B747-8F.

Physical dimensions roughly compare, the 747-8F being slightly longer than the A380-800F (75.3m v 72.7m); but the A380 features a greater wingspan (79.8m v 68.5m) and height (24.1m v 19.4m).

The A380F carries a bigger payload than the 747-8F (153t v 140t) but MTOW are 590t and 436t respectively, making the 747-8F structurally more efficient.

Boeing gives the 747-8F empty weight at 86t less than the A380F, and says this would allow 25% lower fuel burn per ton, and therefore 20% lower trip costs and 23% lower ton mile costs than the A380F.

The A380F boasts significantly greater payload volume and range.

The list prices range from $265-275m for the 747-8F to $272-292m for the A380F.

The A380F will accomodate only 2.4m high pallets (like other freighters), but Airbus counters that this would suffice for most pallets.

Also, although the A380F uses a wider main deck cargo door (4.27m wide) than the 747-8F (3.4m), it does not feature a nose door. Further, it requires a special high loader to reach the upper deck (at 8 metres above the ground), the company encouraging equipment manufacturers to develop a portable mechanism, to be carried in the aircraft's belly, to allow existing loaders to reach the upper deck.

Airbus estimates the the A380f can be turned around in 91 minutes, the same time required for 747 conversions, but 10 minutes more than nose door equiped 747-400F's.

[TineeTim]

BH- For a given number of pax an ULR A/C is the way to go, but that's not how QF operates. Take the 200LR SYD-LHR the figures being quoted were about 180-200 pax and using 150+ tonnes of fuel. Now, fly the same A/C to LHR but stop in HKG. On that flight you can carry 300 pax + freight and your fuel burn only increases marginally. That's what I meant. Obviously I'm rounding and estimating but the exact figures work out the same. That's the 2 year old martian view anyway.

[Cool banana]

Rolls Royce offered another variation of the Trent for the 747-8

[ausflyer]

And so it goe's,:bored:
For the sake of the more long time professionals, can we take a break and get to to the root of the issue.:confused: