747-400`s future

[747 forever]

I was wondering when could the 747-400 disappear forever. Many classic airplanes from the past are still flying like the DC-9 or 747 classics. Will the 747-400 be around in 2020 or 2030? Lots of airlines such as JAL, air new zealand etc are retiring them. I am a huge fan of the 747-400 and would be so sad to see it go for good. From 2011 how long will it live for? What year will it go forever. I know that the freight will live longer than the pax so when will the pax go and the freight go? :confused:

[The Range]

What type is replacing it a those airlines?

[parabellum]

The primary replacement for the B747-400 passenger version, at the moment, are the different versions of the B777, the A340-500 and the A330. When it arrives the B787 will become a major contender.
The A380 is not a 744 replacement as it only serves a niche market and is unlikely to ever be produced in the same numbers as the B747.

As a freighter the B747F has no equal at the moment, the B747-8F will be an improvement on the -400 but you will probably see the B747-400 around for many years yet in various configurations.

[Smudger]

Come back in about 30 years and ask the same question and by then we may have some answers ! (I'm a 747 fan too!)

[glad rag]

The A380 is not a 744 replacement as it only serves a niche market

Well now we know!:E

[747 forever]

just wondering, why do airlines replace large aircrafts with small aircrafts. Personally I think large aircrafts are more profitable because it carries more people.

[grounded27]

just wondering, why do airlines replace large aircrafts with small aircrafts. Personally I think large aircrafts are more profitable because it carries more people.

It is about seat/mile profit and loss.

The 744 for example is a much more profitable aircraft full than the A330, to have full aircraft you must have a strong market. We all know how volitile the aviation industry can be. Now when the market is down, the A330 becomes more profitable as an airline can go off lease or park more aircraft and operate smaller ones at higher capacity, the 74x / A380 operators loose their arse when they can not meet their load factor requirement for profit and have less options.

Going big is a gamble, the 787 will be a very popular aircraft for this reason. The 748 will do well in pax as well as freight. I believe we will see many aircraft hit the boneyard as manufacturers sell aircraft based on their ability to operate with less expense. At the same time this will make these aircraft cheap to aquire giving more compitition from start ups who have low administrative overhead.

[barit1]

Big aircraft are more profitable ONLY if there is a sufficient market.

For example, there might be 400 people wanting to fly ABC to XYZ every weekday, but some want a morning flight, some want an evening flight. Operating a 747 on this route would be a bust, it would be only half full. A 757 or comparable flying twice a day would make good money.

So - simply "liking" a particular plane won't work, if you want to stay in business. Matching the equipment to the market is the key!

[c100driver]

The 744 for example is a much more profitable aircraft full than the A330, to have full aircraft you must have a strong market.

I could fill a B744 with $1 tickets and go broke.

You need both a strong market and a reasonable yield per seat to make money.

Yield and butts on seats is the key to profitability!

B744 with rollers will be rare soon but unfortunately the "hog" will be with us for a long time to come.:{ Boeing twins rule OK !!!!

[Massey1Bravo]

For example, there might be 400 people wanting to fly ABC to XYZ every weekday, but some want a morning flight, some want an evening flight. Operating a 747 on this route would be a bust, it would be only half full. A 757 or comparable flying twice a day would make good money.


One of the odd things I noticed about travel in Asia is that the likes of Cathay, SIA and the Japanese can run 777s and 744s on short hops and still make a decent profit, and yet for some reason it's almost impossible to do this anywhere else in the world.

[747 forever]

but it is much more cheaper operating one big plane than two little planes. Which is better, flying two small planes or one big plane. I think one big because adding up the landing, fee maintenance etc for two small planes would be a bit higher. Just what I think if Im wrong then thats ok

[747 forever]

so is that a yes or a no?

[KAG]

I beleive this is a yes AND a no. In a perfect world (your aircraft capacities matches perfectly the market) yes, in the real world where the market is hard to foresee: no. (barit1 said it already)

[barit1]

the likes of Cathay, SIA and the Japanese can run 777s and 744s on short hops and still make a decent profit

35 years ago JAL wanted a high-capacity, short-range aircraft for domestic use. They bought a dozen or so 747SR's, which were 747-100's optimized for short-haul, high-cycle use. All Nippon also bought this model. Since they weren't tanked up with a lot of fuel, the short-field performance was excellent, even with engines derated 10% on the nameplate.

I rode a couple of these flights, and with high-density seating, it was not unusual to have 500 pax on the manifest - PLUS babes in arms.

[grounded27]

I could fill a B744 with $1 tickets and go broke.

You need both a strong market and a reasonable yield per seat to make money.

Yield and butts on seats is the key to profitability!


I did not think I had to clarify that seats are not sold for a dollar. Bottom line is that with a reasonable market the 744 is more profitable than a twin, assuming cattle car config and both aircraft full.

[mutt]

Bottom line is that with a reasonable market the 744 is more profitable than a twin, assuming cattle car config and both aircraft full. Are you sure about that?

We operate both B744 and B777 aircraft on domestic flights, the extra seating on the 744 doesn't theoretically pay for the additional fuel.......

Mutt

[mattpilot]

but it is much more cheaper operating one big plane than two little planes. Which is better, flying two small planes or one big plane. I think one big because adding up the landing, fee maintenance etc for two small planes would be a bit higher. Just what I think if Im wrong then thats ok

Yes and no... Cheaper, yes, but more profitable? Frequency of operation is also important. As a simple example, you might have 1000 pax/day on a certain route, but that doesn't mean you can fill a big airplane with 500 pax twice a day. Customers like to fly when it fits into their schedule. So if a competitor is running a smaller regional jet 10x a day to a destination, he'll end up eating the big jets customer base and the bigger jet will go (half) empty.

[galaxy flyer]

747forever

You seem to be ignoring the effects of competition and the desires of the paying passengers.

For example, if you put your 747 in a market strong enough to support 2 flights a day profitably. So, along comes a competitor willing to commit 2 767s and a 757 to the route against you. With 2 planes, you can only offer a morning and mid-day flight, your competitor puts the 767 against your two flights and offers a late day to catch premium business travelers who want to fly at the end of the business day--you're in trouble.

This is essentially what drove the 747 off the Atlantic market. It became a 767 market, with 777s on the highest volume routes--primarily LON. By using smaller planes, the airlines could offer non-stop flights connecting more smaller cities in Europe and North America. 747s were common sights on the tracks in the '80s, rare now. Tokyo was 747 Central a decade ago, now they are out-populated by 777s. A glance out the concourse at Narita last month, showed more B777s and A330s than B747s. Purely, anecdotal, but not unusual. A 747 at PHNL is rare now, but in 89 very common.

A long way of saying, the travel market is getting more fractionalized toward non-stop flights connecting smaller and smaller markets. They have delivered over 900 B777s while they delivered maybe half that number of B747s and the trend lines are going in opposite directions.

GF

[grounded27]

Are you sure about that?

We operate both B744 and B777 aircraft on domestic flights, the extra seating on the 744 doesn't theoretically pay for the additional fuel.......


Even if the fuel econ some of these newer twins are performing with is narrowing the gap, there are still additional aircraft operating costs, maintenance costs, landing fees etc.

Granted I proposed a theoretical situation myself, the larger the aircraft the larger the savings. Another thing is routes and slots, now we are talking about exploiting a market to it's fullest with an A380.

I was around on the other hand to watch every 747 acmi freight operator out there get hit hard when trade started to slow down circa 2000/2001. Watched ATLAS allmost go under as their customers started looking for DC-10 and MD-11 operators because they could come closer to filling a smaller jet. ATLAS had somewhere around 30 aircraft at the time.

[The Range]

So, does it make sense to pay $130m or more for a B-777 to replace a
B-747 tha's paid for so you can save 20 or 30 per cent on the fuel bill?
I don't think so.

[galaxy flyer]

Depends on the airline's cost of capital, future prospects, etc. Freighters are harder to justify as they fly less, so DOC's are less a factor. The upfront cost of a B777 will be spread over 60,000+ hours, so the hourly cost of capital can be pretty cheap. Lots more to do with accounting, tax laws, finance than piloting.

GF

[SeenItAll]

Galaxy: The 777 hasn't yet caught up to the 747 in deliveries. You are right with the 777 at over 900, but the 747 has sold over 1400 -- of course over a lifetime that is more than twice as long.

[747 forever]

Just came to my mind, what will future air travel be like. Will it be about big planes or small planes?

[galaxy flyer]

Seenitall

The first B747 was delivered in 1970; the first B777 in 1995. Let's see, 900 planes in 15 years versus 1400 planes in 40 years. I think that proves my point. At this point, it may very will be that there are now more B777s in service than B747s, especially in passenger service.

Boeing's bet is that travelers will demand more frequency, more non-stop flights between more cities of many different sizes. I think they have it right. I suspect the B777 maybe the largest airliner needed in this environment. Look at LON-NYC, there are flights now at all hours of the day and night, all B767, B777 or A330.

It is the same in my end of the business--business jets. Customers want to go non-stop, even if it means 17 hours in a small tube.

GF

[grounded27]

The first B747 was delivered in 1970; the first B777 in 1995. Let's see, 900 planes in 15 years versus 1400 planes in 40 years. I think that proves my point. At this point, it may very will be that there are now more B777s in service than B747s, especially in passenger service.



Not a valid argument, you must compare the volume of air travel into the factor plus the seats or lbs sold on both aircraft on scale over the years. Me thinks the 747 is still way ahead of the fine craft you speak of. The 777 has alot to catch up on and will do... Someday.

I would like to see how many passengers have flown on a 747 compared to a 777 to date and current factors.

When airlines start parking old aircraft for new, the ACMI/cargo industry/low cost airlines start flying the hell out of low overhead older aircraft.

[spannersatcx]

Freighters are harder to justify as they fly less Oh no they don't, we fly the @rses off ours.:eek:

[keesje]

parabellum The primary replacement for the B747-400 passenger version, at the moment, are the different versions of the B777, the A340-500 and the A330. When it arrives the B787 will become a major contender.
The A380 is not a 744 replacement as it only serves a niche market

I think capacity plays a decisive role in growing Asian markets. Fielding a much smaller aircraft in noise / slot / overfly rights restricted markets, coupled with alliance network windows, doesn't seem a realistic way forward.

It seems 747-400s of Korean, Singapore, Qantas, Air France, Malaysia, Thai, Virgin, Asiana, Lufthansa and BA will be replaced by A380s, scaling up capacity by ~35%, which isn't so extreme when markets grow 4-5% per year on average & you're investing for 20-25 years..

Probably many 747-400s will be converted to freighters in Xiamen or Israel. The growing number of fine 744s in the desert makes me worry though..

Photos: - Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo//1841726/L/)

[beachbumflyer]

"The growing number of fine 744s in the desert makes me worry though"
Why? It makes me sad.

[Self Loading Freight]

How much of the 747's fuel efficiency handicap is due to the airframe and wing design, and how much the engines? This is a real fourth-pint question, but could you mod the 747 for two-engine ops with any economic rationale whatsoever?

I presume at some point, the airframe cycles mean that it doesn't matter if it flew on warm air and good wishes, it wouldn't be able to carry on...

[galaxy flyer]

SLF

The wing is rather specialized for the four-engine configuration, making it a twin is impossible now. The major issue is the four engines and associated fuel loads are designed to spread the wing bending moments.

Grounded27

No doubt the B747 fleet has vastly more flight hours and accumulated RPMs flown, close to the entire population of the Earth; however, the direction of sales is the indicator of the future. B777 sales will, without doubt, eclipse B747 sales and will eventually eclipse B747 RPMs as well. Except for dense city-pairs, the B777 will be the largest airliner for many years to come. Airbus admits as much with the A350 design, the low sales potential of the A380 and the B787 order book. Admittedly, Boeing has to deliver it and make the promises come true. The A380 is a cautionary tale, indeed.

BTW, any bets on the A380 delivering 1400 planes or having 800+ in service at once?
GF

[keesje]

beachbumflyer
"The growing number of fine 744s in the desert makes me worry though"
Why? It makes me sad.

There are so many, well maintained, many more to come, I'm afraid some won't be converted into freighters.. Sad indeed for these shiny blue chip airline branded beauties.

On the A380 I do foresee good order potential for the A380 in the next few years.

ANA, CX, Delta, United, Air China, China Eastern and Iberia seem likely new operators. Most of the European carriers will likely at least double their orders (trade in their options)

The CASM is lower then anything, reliability / performance meets the targets and the passengers are willing to pay more according to EK, QF and SQ.. It seems the tide has turned since the negative comments by analyst only a few years back.

Production rate has to become 48 a year, it's now probably 20-24? The backlog is about 5 years and I expect it to stay that way. Many airlines do not like to order more then 5 years ahead..

[grounded27]

the low sales potential of the A380 and the B787 order book. Admittedly, Boeing has to deliver it and make the promises come true. The A380 is a cautionary tale, indeed.

BTW, any bets on the A380 delivering 1400 planes or having 800+ in service at once?


I agree with the A380 floundering, as far as the 787 goes the economic prospects are great, just an extreme risk in it's mostly composit design that I feel has the market weary. When the 787 hits the market with reliability it is a no brainer for sucess. The delays in production for the 787 hurt the orders for them up front as well when a 777lr or airbus options were ready to buy.

I think there was more pride over practality in designing a larger jet than the 74 series that influenced airbus. The 747 and MD-11 had designs for full upper decks, the liability of killing 600 pax in a crash was a big factor in their decision, influenced by the FAA.

[SNS3Guppy]

I think there was more pride over practality in designing a larger jet than the 74 series that influenced airbus. The 747 and MD-11 had designs for full upper decks, the liability of killing 600 pax in a crash was a big factor in their decision, influenced by the FAA.

Hold on a second there. Where did you come up with such a ridiculous idea?

Are you going to assert that the 747 was designed to carry more passengers, but didn't, because some brightspark somewhere along the line determined that killing X number of passengers was an acceptable risk, but killing a few more presented too much liability?

The 747 has an upper deck because the decision was made during the design phase to put the cockpit on top, in order to make it a nose-loader for the military cargo aircraft it was designed to be. Putting an aerodynamic upper deck aft of the cockpit later made sense, but it wasn't designed with a full length upper deck, and the non-existent full length upper deck was never struck from the design for liability concerns. Concept designs looked at a full length upper deck, as wide as the lower, before the aircraft was designed and built as a widebody. The 747 was never designed for a full length upper deck, however, and the original concept design ideas didn't fail to be adopted in an attempt to limit numbers of fatalities in a crash.

The reason the original concept design wasn't pursued was an inability to provide emergency egress, as conceived. Potential numbers of fatalities was never a consideration. Nobody ever said to themselves "let's build it this big, because that many people dying in a crash is okay, but let's not build it that big, because that's too many dead bodies." It simply didn't happen.

The FAA didn't discourage a full length upper deck, either.

The A380 wasn't designed and built for pride, but for profit. Whether it succeeds in it's mission has yet to be determined.

[Joao da Silva]

Look at LON-NYC, there are flights now at all hours of the day and night, all B767, B777 or A330.

This will surprise British Airways. :E

[Dan Winterland]

Much as I love the 747, having flown it with two companys, I have to admit it's days are numbered. It's just too expensive to operate. Great if the economy is good, a millstone around a company's neck when it isn't.

It's also getting old. many airframes are past or getting close to the 20 year mark and past economic viability. The 777-300 is it's natural replacement for long haul - the economics are just so much better. And the 380 will relace it on the high density routes where the revenus is assured.

[AvMed.IN]

One of the most fascinating sight I have ever enjoyed, while working at Delhi airport for about a year in 90's, was the majestic take-off of the BA's 747 flight in the mornings...It is a beauty while taking-off :-)

[GlueBall]

The B744s will truck on at least another 20 years as converted freighters. Remember that the classics already have been around for 40 years...and the converted freighter versions still aren't dead just yet. Imagine: Ten years ago, it was said that the classics would be gone by 2010. It just happens to be a superlative airframe, built like a brick **** house. :ooh:

[main_dog]

The 747 has an upper deck because the decision was made during the design phase to put the cockpit on top, in order to make it a nose-loader for the military cargo aircraft it was designed to be.

Oft-quoted, but a bit of a myth according to its designer, Joe Sutter. The 747 program did owe quite a bit to a previous Boeing project designed to compete for an Air Force requirement (the contract was eventually won by Lockheed's C-5). However the 747 itself was conceived as a purely civilian project, designed with Pan Am boss Juan Trippe's requirements in mind, although indeed planned to be as capable a freighter as it was a pax airliner.

This was to prove a far-sighted ploy: the 747 today is indeed more valued as a freighter. I hope the 747-8I eventually sees some success though: it remains (for me) the most majestic aircraft plying the airways.

:ok:

[barit1]

The double-deck layout is freighter-friendly (simpler crashworthiness certification, e.g.) and almost certainly owes its genes to the earlier CX-HLS (Cargo Experimental-Heavy Logistics System) (http://www.theaviationzone.com/factsheets/c5.asp) proposal.

There is an alternative explanation for the raised flight deck, of course: It's so the captain can sit on his wallet and still have head clearance! :}

[grounded27]

Hold on a second there. Where did you come up with such a ridiculous idea?

Are you going to assert that the 747 was designed to carry more passengers, but didn't, because some brightspark somewhere along the line determined that killing X number of passengers was an acceptable risk, but killing a few more presented too much liability?


links to design renderings of the MD-12 and look on the picture refrenced to 1982 on the 2nd link for a 600-800 passenger double deck 747. They could do it, it is not a rediculous idea it is practicality why they did not. Flight 103 was influential.

http://widebodyaircraft.nl/md12.jpg

Why not extend the upper deck of the 747-8?, page 1 (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread419311/pg1)

[galaxy flyer]

The Boeing proposal for the CX-HLS program looked much like the eventual "winner", the Lockheed C-5. Somewhere I might have some drawings in my C-5 records. High wing, front and rear ramps, the lot. The RFP drove the design.

I differ to superior knowledge on BA services.

GF

[SNS3Guppy]

You cited the MD-11 before, but now it's the imaginary MD-12.

Where do we find anything at all which remotely suggests that the concept was abandoned because of fears of killing too many passengers, or because of pressure by the FAA? Neither are the case, and both are lies.

The same is correctly said of the 747.

Further, Flight 103 has nothing to do with the subject. You're going to suggest that a terrorist act caused Boeing (et al) to elect not to build aircraft holding more passengers, ostensibly because more passengers might be killed in a terrorist act? That's even more ridiculous than your previous assertion.

You're still going to stick with the story that the FAA influenced this?

[grounded27]

Yes, it was a large factor. I can not find a refrence to substantiate it but am damb sure you can not find one to prove me wrong. There were variants of the md-11 the MD-12 was on the books with potential.

MD11/MD12-undeveloped models (http://md-eleven.net/MD11-MD12-undeveloped-models)


This is back in the day when there was a market for large as they can be aircraft operating hub to hub.

[barit1]

I'm not so sure the size limitation was FAA-driven - but it may well have been customer driven.

I know there was some hesitancy in the late 60s-early 70s about operating trijets on long overwater routes. It didn't last long - operating statistics soon overcame that objection. And in another decade ETOPS became common.

[misd-agin]

747's ultimate future? Pots and pans. :ok:

[747 forever]

yet again the 777-300 is getting old to. If its the 300ER then yes it could be. Also if boeing does not make a 777-300F then the 777-300 series will be scrapped and thats it.
Also somewhere on the net it says the 777 will be sold out in 2012. Is this true or some guy starting some debate? On boeings order list the 777 currently has 50 777s on order and 40% of them are for fed ex

[grounded27]

I would hedge a bet that the 773 would be a great 'f conversion for a 777f company looking for 777 fleet diversification/market.

[SNS3Guppy]

Yes, it was a large factor. I can not find a refrence to substantiate it but am damb sure you can not find one to prove me wrong.

No, it really wasn't a large factor. In fact, it was no factor at all, outside the realm of your imagination.

Of course you can't find anything to substantiate it, because you're wrong. You're talking out your backside.

One doesn't need to prove a negative. You made a false assertion and can't back it up. That's good enough.

You may as well assert that red is green, and can't back that up, either. I needn't prove that red isn't green, because it's not.

747's ultimate future? Pots and pans.

Not for a long, long time. 747's are still working hard, earning their keep.

I'm not so sure the size limitation was FAA-driven - but it may well have been customer driven.

Of course the failure of a design to get bought was customer driven. the FAA didn't regulate it out of existence. The FAA didn't fail to buy it. Customer airlines failed to buy it or want it.

This had nothing to do with the baseless and wild assertion that airlines were afraid of killing too many passengers, or that the FAA was concerned about the same, because such a ridiculous, wild notion simply isn't true. It also had nothing to do with the reason that the 747 has no full length upper deck.

[Red Jet]

On boeings order list the 777 currently has 50 777s on order and 40% of them are for fed ex
Actually, Boeings current backlog of 777's is more than 250 aircraft!

[grounded27]

Guppy, I brought up dirt. Dirt is often not published. Have your false assertion as you wish.

[SNS3Guppy]

Guppy, I brought up dirt.

Oh, you got that right. Pure, unadulterated, fanciful, imaginary dirt.

Dirt is often not published.

Lies are best left in your imagination. You make a lot of questionable posts; you simply got caught this time. Don't worry. More to come.

Have your false assertion as you wish.

Not at all. As you wish.

[747 forever]

maybe in 100 years time

[747 forever]

I don`t know about the 787. Its 1/3 of the 747 in size! Do airlines really want to use such small thing to replace something 3 times the size of it? I think its between the 777 and the a380

[barit1]

747 forever:
I don`t know about the 787. Its 1/3 of the 747 in size! Do airlines really want to use such small thing to replace something 3 times the size of it? I think its between the 777 and the a380

That's right, you don't know. From Boeing's website:

"The 787-8 Dreamliner will carry 210 - 250 passengers on routes of 7,650 to 8,200 nautical miles (14,200 to 15,200 kilometers), while the 787-9 Dreamliner will carry 250 - 290 passengers on routes of 8,000 to 8,500 nautical miles (14,800 to 15,750 kilometers)."

[747 forever]

so your point is...? I know that its 210-250-290 but airlines are planning them something like 180-200. e.g delta in two class configuration is 202. Thats quite small. The largest 737 could possible have the same amount

[barit1]

And a 744 seats 3x202 = 606?

[galaxy flyer]

747forever

While I don't doubt your sincerity in admiring the 747, you have to look at the cold-blooded facts. Airlines are commercial enterprises that must earn a return on their investor's investment by appealing to paying passengers. There will be routes that can support the 744 or the A380, but it is a minority of all city-pairs. Passengers, including yourself I'd bet, want to travel with the fewest stops and the least fare--that is what will dictate the future's airliners.

The 787 and A350 are the future for the reason they are going to be 20%-25% cheaper per seat-mile to operate and should be profitable on "thinner" routes and by allowing profits while giving passengers frequency they demand. The premium passengers want to leave on their schedule, not the airline's.

A US example--everyone used to fly to LAX to fly to Hawaii, wherever in Hawaii they were staying. Now, one can fly, non-stop, from about 10 mainland islands. And 3 more destinations in Hawaii now have service, rather than just Honolulu with connections to Kona, Maui, Kauai, Honolulu.

That is where airline routes have been going since the 767 introduced ETOPS from Halifax to London in 1985.

GF

[747 forever]

Ok what ever I did not check that, got that off line but its still small for a replacement

[747 forever]

Ok I am busy so I wont be back for a while. So small question will it be here in 20-30 years time? Yes or no? Thanks bye

[barit1]

When transatlantic travel was exploding 25 years ago, a lot of secondary routes/destinations were opening up - CVG-LGW was one of the first. Passengers loved the thought of arriving at a midwest airport directly, without negotiating immigration/customs at JFK or ORD. But the market was clearly too small for the Jumbo, so a 767 or A310 was ideal.

[747 forever]

well yes or no???? Please???

[er340790]

I read a while back that the USAF already has B52 pilots who are the grandchildren of original B52 pilots... the airframes are currently slated to still be operational around 80 years after manufacture. WAY TO GO BOEING! :D

So a 20-year old 747 pilot in 1970, say has kids who flying by 1990 and grandkids who could be flying 747s.... around now.

Anyone know if it has happened yet???????

[screwdriver]

I never thought that I'd say this , as they only got rid of their last -200s 9 years ago, but...BA about to scrap one of their early 400s!
Probably delivered in 89.:eek:
Makes me feel OLD.

[Wannabe Flyer]

http://www.pprune.org/passengers-slf-self-loading-freight/438663-majestic-747-original-jumbo-sky-3.html#post6213821

Still a Majestic bird

[11Fan]

So small question will it be here in 20-30 years time? Yes or no?

well yes or no???? Please???

OK...........................Yes

[747 forever]

really, or made up hehe. You did not sound as confident. I take that as a yes in that case...

[11Fan]

You did not sound as confident

Well son, considering I am involved in converting 747-400's from a passenger configuration to a freighter -and have been doing it for a number of years- yeah, I'm pretty confident.

You asked for a yes or no answer. It has been provided, several times already.

Let's move on, shall we?

[747 forever]

so what happens to the 747 that come from international airliners? Many international airlines are retiring them in favor of other planes. Do we see a future for the 747 or not? I know the freight is the best but how about the future of passenger services? Also how about aging 777s? The oldest ones are getting quite old. Whats worse is there is no 777BCF:eek:

[747 forever]

ok thanks. The freight sounds good but how about passenger services? Will there be passenger services from the 747-400 in 20-30 years time?

[mutt]

Yes they will :):):) Are you happy now? There are certain routes or passenger movements in the world that require large aircraft, but as they only happen once per year, very few operators will be able to support the operating costs of the A380 just for these movements, hence the 747 will live on in the same way that the L1011 has done :)

Mutt

[747 forever]

thanks, before I go, what do you mean once a year? Literally once a year or something like charter routes. Also how did the tristar do it? What kind of airlines will operate them?

[mutt]

Did you ever hear of HAJJ? Once a year with approx 1 million passengers carried inbound within 6 weeks and then outbound again, for another 6 weeks. What kind of airlines operate these flights, actually a lot of flag carriers operate them, as well as "fly by night" airlines that only operate for 3 months a year and might actually manage to pay their employees salaries and expenses. These airlines have already started operating Hajj with the -400....

Mutt

[747 forever]

is that the only thing? I think the a380 would be perfect for that. But yes I have heard of it. Is it only second hand airlines who do that?

[747 forever]

can we rely on this?The replacements (http://boeingblogs.com/randy/archives/2007/05/the_replacements.html)

Is this accurate or are the dates made up? Also why are the 747 classics being retired in 2008? If its inefficient why fly it? The -400 has a better range.

[SNS3Guppy]

Also why are the 747 classics being retired in 2008?

Are you aware it's 2011?

We operate Classics, quite successfully. Not retired, and not close to retirement. We also operate the -400's, also quite successfully. The -400 will be around for a long time to come.

[747 forever]

thanks, yes but if you saw in my link it says 2008 but that is for passenger versions. Is your company a freight company? The freight is excellent. When do you think the last regular, non charter, non Hajj passenger flight will be flown? On my link it says 2024 for the passenger but I can`t trust randy. He is bias:=

[747 forever]

also JAL is preparing to retire its 777-200, 777-300. Before you reply keep in mind they are the non ERs. They are operated on short flights so there coming to the end of there cycles. What do you think is going to happen to them? Scrap or being sold? Most of the oldest 777s are coming to the end to.

[Dan Winterland]

''I read a while back that the USAF already has B52 pilots who are the grandchildren of original B52 pilots... the airframes are currently slated to still be operational around 80 years after manufacture.''

The RAF VC10 fleet had a Captain who was the third generation of HER family to fly the aircraft. Her Grandfather did the developement flying in BOAC, her dad flew them before joining the Concorde fleet, and she later flew them in the RAF.


The B52s have sat around on alert for a lot of their life and despite being old, have very few hours - especially compared to civil aircraft. Quite a few of the KC135s are in the same caegory.

[747 forever]

so people say that long haul planes that can serve small airports are good. What if there was a plane that can fly long haul, serve small airports and can carry lots and lots of passengers. Would that be good? Something like the A380 but can land and takeoff from a small airport like the 787? I thought that would be good:D

[galaxy flyer]

A recipe for financial disaster--A380/747 size planes operating out of small airports, that is small cities. These cities cannot generate enough traffic to justify large planes. That is the point of the 787, develop smaller markets by offering non-stop service to international markets.

I cannot believe many 777s are being scrapped yet, the oldest is only 15 years, perhaps 60,000 hours.

GF

[barit1]

747 forever:so people say that long haul planes that can serve small airports are good. What if there was a plane that can fly long haul, serve small airports and can carry lots and lots of passengers. Would that be good? Something like the A380 but can land and takeoff from a small airport like the 787? I thought that would be good

Please take this message to heart: Big airplanes and small markets do not go together. Empty seats do not pay the bills. If this is too difficult a lesson, do not plan a career in business administration.

[747 forever]

yeah its 15 years but the ones in Japan here fly very short routes. Its at the end of its cycle. JAL already sent 3 away and later more is to go

[747 forever]

So when the 787 and a350 is serving small airports what will the a380 serve? Will the route of two major cites still be popular?
Also can the 777 serve long haul routes to small cites?

[surely not]

It is a falsehood to say that the A380 is only good for high density City pairs.
It is already being used in a different role by the leading operator of type. It is a major feed aircraft into their hub, with very few of the passengers staying in DXB but connecting onto their other routes operated by other aircraft types.

As for the 747, it is an old design now and would need substantial changes to it's structure and also its evacuation procedures if being designed today. The 747-8 will likely be a good freighter if they ever sort out its fluter problems, but the pax variant doesn't seem to have much of a future.

Nice aircraft in its day, but noisy to travel in now when compared to modern designs, excepting the B777 which has high noise levels in the cabin. I like the B777 in all ways except its high airframe noise in the cabin.

[747 forever]

ops, I forgot to mention, High capacity BUT less frequent. Maybe once a week carrying 500 passengers at once. That is quite efficient in lots of ways. I mean people like frequent flights BUT the 787 is small. Can it have a bar, shower, exercise room etc? The 747-8s design of the sky loft was excellent! It could of had that. That would totally as a passenger beat the 787. Would you rather fly a boring small plane OR a big plane with showers or other luxurious things mentioned

[barit1]

Travelers count their time as valuable. If they have the choice of taking
A) a smaller craft this morning,
B) a similar flight this evening, or
C) waiting until next Thursday to fly a 747 (or even a Concorde), which will they elect?

[panda-k-bear]

Going back to page one (sorry!) The A380 is not a 744 replacement as it only serves a niche market and is unlikely to ever be produced in the same numbers as the B747.

Is that right? I'm interested to know and understand the logic. The 747-100 was the first 747 variant in a long line over 40-odd years and sold about 165 units. The A380-800 as it stands today is the first variant of the A380 and has sold 244 units. Who is to say that it won't spawn whole series of additional variants over the next 35 years in the same way as the 747 did (747SP, 747-200, 747SUD, 747D, 747-300, 747-400, 747-8i to count only the passenger variants)?

The 747 was a niche aircraft once, too. But cities got bigger, people got richer and more willing/able to travel and the 707 was soon dead.

[747 forever]

bigger planes fly faster?...

[747 forever]

look my point is, its not like each flight is going to be full capacity. Its a small city. If you do it once or twice a week it will be full, more economical and more environmentally friendly. Also keep in mind, luxurious flight, small planes are lame:(

[barit1]

yeah its 15 years but the ones in Japan here fly very short routes. Its at the end of its cycle. JAL already sent 3 away and later more is to go

Ah, you are now talking a shuttle service such as pioneered by Eastern (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/02/nyregion/02shuttle.html) flying BOS-LGA-DCA. Started in 1961 with ragged-out Connies, later Electras and DC-9/727's. The appeal was "every hour, on the hour" and those aircraft were about the right size for the hourly market. If one airplane filled to capacity, a second was immediately available, even for a single solitary overflow SLF.

Again, timeliness was the market appeal. No waiting for next Thursday's flight. How much sense would a 747 make there?

EDIT: Just noticed the 50th anniversary of the EAL Air Shuttle will be 30 April 2011.

[747 forever]

The point is the 777s in Asia are at the end of there cycles, they are no longer profitable so I guess now they are scrap:(

[747 forever]

Also few questions about cycles.
1) if a plane is stored does the cycles get higher or remain nutural?
2) how many years would 100000 hours be (exactly 11 years but planes last more than that) for an average plane as there life span is that. But how long in years would an average commercial planes cycle be in years?

[747 forever]

when would we see biofuel being used for every flight? There has been many tests and I think biofuel has proven itself. When will they be used in every plane? You see the problem with clean airtravel is that there cant be electric airliners. Way to imposible, but in my opinion biofuel is the fututre for clean airtavel with jet engines:ok:

[barit1]

1) if a plane is stored does the cycles get higher or remain nutural?
If a plane is stored, how many times does it take off and land? That's the definition of a cycle!


2) how many years would 100000 hours be (exactly 11 years but planes last more than that) for an average plane as there life span is that. But how long in years would an average commercial planes cycle be in years?

Do the math. There are 8000+ hours in a year. If the plane is in the air 50% of the time, that's 4000 hours or so. I suspect 3000-3500 hours is more typical. So, maybe 30 years to get to 100000 hours.

And short-haul ops might average 1 hour per cycle. Long-haul might be 6-8 hours per cycle. Depends on the route system.

[barit1]

when would we see biofuel being used for every flight?

When will biofuel become cost-competitve with present fuel?

I'm glad you're asking these very basic questions, 747 forever, because people outside the industry often have no grasp of the fundamentals.

[mutt]

http://www.planepictures.net/a/101/61/1298120891.jpg

You can expect this one to be around for a while :):)

Mutt

[groundbum]

it's amusing to see you all squabble over airline economics and big vs small. For any budding airline moguls out there I play a superb little airline simulator at AirwaySim Airline Game - Online Airline Management Simulation (http://www.airwaysim.com). It's fantastically realistically changing fuel, airplane models and route demand as time goes by...

I've no financial interest in the gane, just really enjoy playing it even though I do normally go bankrupt against far better players..

G

[gas path]

Whats that parked next to the Caravelle in the background on that picture?

[747 forever]

I play airline tycoon 2 on my iphone! But yeah fuel price and plane models stay the same. Sucks because airlines buy many new planes, do you think they will still sell and old 737 in 2050. I have 50 737s in my fleet and its 2060! I guess I should play that:ugh:

[747 forever]

What Is That???:\

[747 forever]

how would the 777 end? The oldest are coming close to the end. Boeing has not made a 777BCF and ANA, JAL are going to retire some 777s with the last flight of JALs 747-400 today, 3/1 and ANA on 3/6 from guam. Its raining in Tokyo today. Such a sad day:{, hope it rains on sunday. But strange, every retirement of a JAL plane on its last flight it rains.

[barit1]

GE has bought one of JAL's 744s (http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/2011/02/28/ge-aviation-buys-new-boeing-747-for-test-bed/http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/2011/02/28/ge-aviation-buys-new-boeing-747-for-test-bed/) and is rehabbing it as a testbed for experimental and developmental engine tests. For 25 years they have been using an ancient PAA 747-100 for this task, but decided to retire it.

Edit: Actually the -100 has been used by GE for only 19 years :O

[SNS3Guppy]

JAL's retired 744's get a second life doing freight. They're not retiring.

[747 forever]

they are retiring from JAL, of course they are not going to be scrapped or stored! That plane is less than 10 years of age so lots of value left. Most of them have been bought by Transero, aircastle (aircraft leaser), Aersales and many freighters. Some Ds however have been scrapped

[747 forever]

Just realized this but how come many major operators did not retire there 747 classics by 2000-2003? I mean thats like 10-13 years from when the 747-400 was released and 5-8 from the 777 was.

[747 forever]

um how about a large plane that can carry so much people and fly ultra long haul routes???

[ZFT]

The ultra long haul market is too niche for a 'large' aircraft. Both TG and SQ seem to struggle with the economics of their A340s direct to LA and NY routes and having experienced them on too many occasions, it is not something I willingly wish to re-experience again. Far, far too long cramped up in that tube.

[747 forever]

true. TG operate their a340-500 on short asian route and their 747-400 on long routes. SQ as well

[747 forever]

plus it reduces fees alot

[barit1]

There is a way to reduce landing fees - which more than one airline has employed.

DO NOT order the aircraft at its max TOGW certification. Instead, specify some bolt-on component (such as brakes) that conveniently reduces MTOGW certification, which is usually the basis for airport fees.

Then (assuming the wing was built to normal spec), if the market calls for a higher TOGW, bolt on the bigger brakes and get the higher MTOGW paperwork, and Bob's your uncle. Of course, now you pay higher fees.

[ZFT]

747-400 forever,

true. TG operate their a340-500 on short asian route and their 747-400 on long routes. SQ as well

Are you sure? The SIA -500s are in an all business class config and the only TG A340s I seen regionally are -600s

[747 forever]

sorry mate, SIA is doing long haul flight, TG is doing asian. Maybe some a340-500 are doing international but most are on the asian route ( you can check that online)

[747 forever]

ok, then lets say the route requires two small to mid sized plane and only requires one big one which would be better?

[barit1]

You left out the important piece: Will the market accept only one flight per day? What if you decide to fly a 747 once a day, every afternoon. Your competitor moves in with a 767 to fly a morning flight. Half of your customers like the morning flight better, so you are left with a half-full 747.

Is the 747 the right size now? :ugh:

[747 forever]

advantages and disadvantage for everyone of them. Never mind that. But you said the 747 is not the right size. Well what if the route in the morning and afternoon required something of that size. Disadvantage for the other airline cause it will have to fly 4 767s a day and we all know who is going to get the higher fee:oh:

[barit1]

Oh, that certainly can happen as (or if) the market grows. But once again, it's a case of matching the airplane to the market.

[747 forever]

so your saying if the market was bigger then that is more suited? But I thought the market is bigger than it was.

[SeenItAll]

While not 744s, the 748 just gained another 5 orders. See: Boeing wins $10 billion deal from Chinese airlines - Yahoo! Finance (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Boeing-wins-10-billion-deal-rb-105887941.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=6&asset=&ccode=)

[747 forever]

Yeah that is quite good for both parties. Cross our fingers that a few more will trickle in. Hopefully when it enters service more will come. What kind of routes will they be deployed on? Im gonna go and fly on one when I get the chance

[K_9]

Just read this whole thread. I need an advil and a beer. :ugh:

[747 forever]

4 engines 4 ever! So why don`t other airlines (mainly asians) get high capacity planes for its us route? JAL operate 2 planes on each american city. For a broke airline I think if it gets a high capacity plane it is gonna help them. They will need less crew, get less fees, and less drink food etc to load it with. Good eh?

[747 forever]

good news, Lufthansa will refurbish 10 747-400s starting this April. Not much change to the business class but economy will get PTVs. This is good. Plus a 747-400 stored in Hamburg will be brought back into service:ok:

[747 forever]

Looks like business is more important than the environment, well there will be the day were the government gives limits to how much planes are operated and that is when the big birds come in handy.

[Semu]

Back to the original question. Few pax -400s will be flying by 2020. There will be some in specialty niches, no doubt, and some VIP birds. The freighters will be around for a long long time for a simple reason: Airbus put the flight deck on the 380 on the centre deck :ugh: so it will never make a cost effective nose loader (as well as looking like it has a receding hair line). I expect the 747-500 (-8F) will serve the specialty freight market for all of our lifetimes.

[K_9]

Looks like business is more important than the environment, well there will be the day were the government gives limits to how much planes are operated and that is when the big birds come in handy.
Government will limit carbon emissions per seat-mile or lb(freight)-mile. As others have said repeatedly, it is not efficient to use a 500 passenger airplane on a route with only 50 passengers. Your suggestion to fly it once a week would never work, either--I don't want to fly from Indianapolis to Seattle and then wait in the airport for 4 days to catch a flight to Fairbanks on an A380. I could drive there in that time if I drank enough Red Bull.
Another reason: airplanes are extremely expensive and they don't make money by sitting on the ramp. If you're paying $100,000 a month for an airplane lease, do you want it to earn you money 4 times a month or 4 times a day?

[747 forever]

I think that short routes (within the country) will be replaced by trains. High speed trains are really efficient and on a national geographic channel episode the train makers are hopping to replace planes for short hauls. China has plans for that, they are already building the rails for it

[K_9]

I think that short routes (within the country) will be replaced by trains. High speed trains are really efficient and on a national geographic channel episode the train makers are hopping to replace planes for short hauls. China has plans for that, they are already building the rails for it
Rail is about the most efficient mode of transportation out there. However, it will be quite some time before it is widely implemented and used in the United States. We're impatient and like our cars. Not to mention we are rather spread out and would require a prohibitively large amount of new infrastructure to serve anything other than major cities and whatever minor cities happen to be along those corridors and large enough to warrant a stop. Hopefully we can at least move forward with the plan to add that level of service, although it seems like the Republicans want us to keep driving Hummers everywhere instead.

[barit1]

Semu:The (744) freighters will be around for a long long time for a simple reason: Airbus put the flight deck on the 380 on the centre deck so it will never make a cost effective nose loader...

What if someone invents a jacked-up cockpit a la the old Carvair/DC-4 conversion? This is aviation, and people are always pushing the envelope. :}

[K_9]

Semu:

What if someone invents a jacked-up cockpit a la the old Carvair/DC-4 conversion? This is aviation, and people are always pushing the envelope. :}
I think, in all probability, we would be more likely to see a swing-tail modification (a la 747LCF (http://jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6348079))than a re-design of the nose section if it were done by a third-party. I think raising the cockpit would make for a very difficult retrofit on an airplane like the A380. Unless, of course, Airbus itself made the design change for a new freighter derivative. Probably wouldn't be economically viable, since the 747s and AN-124s handle most of that market, and as previously discussed in this thread there are going to be a lot of 747-400s changing over from passenger to cargo configurations. Not to mention FedEx's huge 777F order.

If anything larger were really required, they would be building more AN-225s. ;)

[barit1]

K_9:Rail is about the most efficient mode of transportation out there.

...But only under specific conditions. City-center to city-center, less than 400-500 miles, it can't be beat. Most any other situation, look elsewhere, because either local connections or enroute time will destroy the market appeal.

[K_9]

K_9:

...But only under specific conditions. City-center to city-center, less than 400-500 miles, it can't be beat. Most any other situation, look elsewhere, because either local connections or enroute time will destroy the market appeal.
"Efficient" meaning fuel burn per freight mile or seat mile. I agree with you on the other points. There's a reason I've never taken a train in my life other than a trolley. :ok:

[747 forever]

thanks, what kind of airlines will? Golden ones e.g BA, virgin, united etc or second hand airlines e.g iran air, saudi arabian etc?

[747 forever]

wow, the 747 proved it self. My friend said he was flying from SFO to VHHH and there were high winds all over in the ocean and all trans pacific 77w were grounded. But the 747 took off on time. Passengers must be happy when that situation happens and a 747 is there

[barit1]

wow, the 747 proved it self. My friend said he was flying from SFO to VHHH and there were high winds all over in the ocean and all trans pacific 77w were grounded. But the 747 took off on time. ..

Wow, very incomplete data. Are we talking surface winds, winds aloft, ??? Why did a 747 w/crew just happen to be available? Was the triple range-limited? Let us know, Tell us more...

[K_9]

747-400 range: 7,260 nmi
777-300ER range: 7,930 nmi
747-400 normal cruise: Mach 0.85
777-300ER normal cruise: Mach 0.84
:hmm:

[11Fan]

Not to mention that things have been a little chaotic over the last few days. 747 forever seems unfazed though. A little surprising, given his location. That said, aparently, he's OK so I'm happy about that.

[mutt]

Considering what occurred in that area, I would guess that this has to do with ETOPS alternates rather than range.

Mutt

[747 forever]

Thanks mate, I am safe right now but it's chaos here. Im trying to escape japan but everything is overbooked. Nuclear radiation just hit Tokyo so everyone is panicking. Thank you everyone who is concerned, I really appreciate it

[TSR2]

First flight scheduled for Sunday 20th March.

[11Fan]

First flight scheduled for Sunday 20th March. Give or take......

You can watch it here.

Boeing's New Airplane (http://www.newairplane.com/)

[TSR2]

O ye of little faith.

Maiden flight of the B747-8I scheduled for tomorrow Sunday 20th March at 16.45GMT.

[K_9]

747-8F has been flying since last summer so the -8I shouldn't be a big deal.

[747 forever]

I managed to escape Japan and Im in the UK now. I got to fly the KLM 747-400. The 747-400 I have to say is very vey strong against very very strong turbulence. Over Russia since I was at the very back it was shaking a bit but the pilot said it was very very sever winds outside. There was clouds at 32,000 feet. At the end as the plane flew and the most turbulent place (the most northly route over russia) it was really shaking so hard even the crew had to sit down. At the end of the flight I got to go cockpit and the pilot said be glad your flying on the 747 because the turbulence would have been worse on other planes. Also the co pilot was very young, he was 22 :eek: That was a great time

[TSR2]

B747-8I airbourne 16.58 on maiden flight.

[11Fan]

Current expected landing time at Boeing Field around 21:20 GMT.

www.newairplane.com (http://www.newairplane.com)

[TSR2]

Landed 21.24 GMT

[spannersatcx]

saw it land, looks nice, :ok:

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k319/spannersatcx/boeing/DSCF0394.jpg

[11Fan]

Multiple Threads going now, but this is a Screen Capture from the Webcast.

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm107/APC11Fan/747-8i1.jpg

[K_9]

A friend of mine from work got these:

http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/188419_10100308472325918_13735476_59033939_4425541_n.jpg

http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/198438_10100308470250078_13735476_59033871_3933687_n.jpg

http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/195825_10100308467874838_13735476_59033794_3206721_n.jpg

[747 forever]

coming to think for my next booking, is the 747-400 eqquiped with anti turbulence technology? And most importantly is it good. The 777 has it I belive but was not good. The last time I flew a 777 words cannot describe how bad the 777 was against turbulence:yuk: and why is the back bumpy?

[barit1]

747 forever:

Please do not discuss anti turbulence technology any further. This is a highly classified subject and you are placing yourself at great risk by disclosing it to the wrong people!

[K_9]

Oh God--he knows too much! Get rid of your cell phone and put on your tinfoil hat before they find you!

[11Fan]

Truth be told, that anti-turbulence stuff only works in the hangar. You didn't hear it from me though.

[747 forever]

you mean it does not exsist? Well thats just :mad:. But why is it that secret? This is not about A vs B, wait... AHA!!! NASA

[747 forever]

Just though of something crazy, what if the 747-400 had two engines. Like one and four removed. Would it be more efficient than the 747-8 or 777? It would not carry as much as it would with four however but good for low weight flights Also when will the first 747-8 be delivered? I have a feeling it will before the 787 :ok:

[barit1]

I'm certain someone has considered the 747 twin possibilities, but here are some of the issues involved:

GE has used their 747-100 testbed to wring out many different development engines, installed in the #2 position. One problem is the great diameter of the GE90-115B means there is very little ground clearance, and so if the left wing is a bit low on landing, the nacelle can scrape the runway. This presents a real problem in a left crosswind, surely unacceptable for an airline's ops.

And all the 747 electrical, pneumatic, and hydraulic systems are predicated on four engines. This would mean a major design change to switch to two donks.

[747 forever]

Do you know the SFC for the GE90-115B? The CF6-80c2 is 36 to 38. But Iv always thought of the ground clearance, especially the 737. 48cm is the clearance between the ground and engine!

[K_9]

I'm certain someone has considered the 747 twin possibilities, but here are some of the issues involved:

GE has used their 747-100 testbed to wring out many different development engines, installed in the #2 position. One problem is the great diameter of the GE90-115B means there is very little ground clearance, and so if the left wing is a bit low on landing, the nacelle can scrape the runway. This presents a real problem in a left crosswind, surely unacceptable for an airline's ops.

And all the 747 electrical, pneumatic, and hydraulic systems are predicated on four engines. This would mean a major design change to switch to two donks.
Not to mention all of the structure is designed around 4 engines rather than 2. A two-engined 747 would be pretty much a clean-sheet design merely inspired by the Queen.

[747 forever]

beautiful, a they make combi? What will KLM replace there -400 combi with?

[747 forever]

hey coming back to big aircrafts in small cities check this article outhttp://news.travel.aol.com/2011/04/12/small-airports-boeing-747-8-traffic/

[barit1]

A local airport must weigh the cost of improvements - moving taxiways, providing adequate clearance etc. against the hoped-for increased business.

And this article is primarily focused of freight ops.

[K_9]

Indeed it is. It's interesting to see Toledo in that article, since that's my hometown. They have had a surprising number of 747 freight ops (considering Toledo's economy is dead) and with the way the cargo side of the airport is laid out I don't think they would have to do anything at all except repaint the ramp.

[Mark Meeker]

As the 747 was initially to compete against the Lockheed and McDonnell/Douglas as a design competition for the CX-HLS program.

The C5A won mainly because of the straight in nose and aft loading feature. The Boeing had nose and side loading..

The big problem was the main fuselage mounted main gear assembly which at the time was so big that it split the lower main deck in two. That would have been a passenger loading and emergency evacuation nightmare.

If the FAA was involved it would have been in respects to this original design not capable of the mandated 90 second evacuation. So in spite of dropping the original high wing to a low wing configuration, that split main deck was a no no for the airlines, in addition to the airlines not liking the upper deck and considered it too much capacity for market conditions.

The main gears were made more compact and allowed a flat fore to aft main deck, and thats what the airlines wanted, this still barely made the 90 second evacuation requirement.

Yes the civilian market was a big consideration during the design stage for the 747. At the time the airplane was coming together, Boeing was working on the SST, and it was felt that the 747 would only serve on the front line until replaced by the 2707 SST, Concorde etc. To preserve their service life. the 747 was designed from the git goe as a freighter, with the raised upper deck fuselage "hump" to allow straight in nose loading capability for its second life. Although the nose door would not appear until later in production.

In fact the first 25 747s ordered by Pan Am included two 747F versions.

[Mercenary Pilot]

As the 747 was initially to compete against the Lockheed and McDonnell/Douglas as a design competition for the CX-HLS program.

A common misconception, the 747 was a fresh design for Pan-Am. Juan Tripp also wanted a double decker but Boeing managed to convince him that a widebody was the way forward, after seeing the mock-ups Juan agreed that the widebody concept was what he wanted.

[Mark Meeker]

I got my information from Boeing..the CX-HLS program had just been rejected in favor of the C5A, and Bill Allen had discussed the program with Juan Trippe on a fishing trip on board John Wayne's former boat. Juan in essence stated that if Boeing will build it, Pan American would buy it.

The original design was modified and submitted to Pan American and rejected for the reasons stated above. It was basically returned to the drawing board and reconfigured. It did help that a more compact and lighter main gear assembly allowed the new main deck.

[barit1]

In fact the upper deck was originally a lounge, not occupied during TO & landing because there were no evac slides operable at that elevation. Only after slide technology had advanced were the airlines able to sell legal seats upstairs.

[Mercenary Pilot]

I got my information from Boeing

Okay, well I got my information from Joe Sutter's book '747: Creating the World's First Jumbo Jet and Other Adventures from a Life in Aviation', I highly recommend it for anyone interested in the 747 story.

[Mark Meeker]

However,I did specifically ask that question, since my contact at Boeing was so forthcoming. He said no, the 747 was based primarily on the CX-HLS design competition, and that this concept was considered as a civilian airplane from the start. When Pan American said they would buy it, both Pan American (including Charles Lindbergh) teamed up with Boeing to develop the airplane.

The stretching of the 707 airframe was not feasable (like the DC-8) without an expensive redesign, and projected market growth was such that the "707-500" would have still been too small.. The CX-HLS was envisioned for civilian use from the outset, and it was just a matter of converting it for passenger use and convincing Pan American to buy it.

Like the 707 (and Stratocruiser) Pan American was the most influential airline in the world, so if Pan Am bought it, the other airlines would as well just to compete. :bored:

[Maverick16]

Hi 747Forever,

Looks like I've finally found someone like me. I too love and adore the 747, especially the 400 series. I personally don't fancy the new aircrafts they come up with these days although they are more technologically advanced, and I think Airbus built the A380 just to compete with the 744 and to keep up with the competition. Anyways, I don't think any aircraft will come anywhere close to what the 747 has achieved. Today, the 747 has transported the most number of passengers around the world and the 400 series has one of the best safety records. Most of the incidents with this aircraft type were due to pilot error or some external issue like weather, not with the plane itself. It has not been long since the launch of the A380 and it has already been giving so many problems - The excuse I've heard most is "teething problems". But teething problems don't go to the extent where lives are being threathened, like in the Qantas case. Unfortunately, most airlines are phasing out the 747-400s, including Singapore Airlines. Well the next best thing now I guess is the 747-8I. It is a nice aircraft too but unfortunately, it does not have the winglets of the 400 series.

[747 forever]

yeah, quite sad. But all I know is currently that the "fancy airlines" are retiring them. Whens the peak of -400 retirements going to be? My goal is to fly a 747-400 once in my life. Its a dream of mine. I have been to the simulator down it london and it was soooooooo fun.