The official end of the Boeing 747, say the airlines.

[KAG]

Prices for Boeing (BA) Co. 747-400s, the most popular wide-body plane, are tumbling as carriers rush to replace what were once their flagship aircraft with newer and more fuel-efficient models.

Ten-year-old passenger 747-400s are worth a record low $36 million, about 10 percent less than similar aged planes last year, according to Ascend Worldwide Ltd., amid high fuel costs and a cargo slump that has damped interest in converting aircraft into freighters. Forty-eight of the 404 humpbacked passenger 747-400s worldwide have also been placed in storage, according to the London-based aviation consultancy, as the once “Queen of the Skies” is shunned for 777s and Airbus SAS A380s.


“There’s not a lot of demand for the 747,” said Paul Sheridan, Ascend’s Hong Kong-based head of risk analysis. “They’re mostly being broken up for parts.”

The decline in prices contributed to Singapore Airlines Ltd. (SIA) having a surprise loss in the quarter ended March after the sale of the carrier’s last 747-400 raised less than it expected. Japan Airlines Co. has also stopped using the planes, and operators including Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd. (293), Korean Air Lines Co. and Malaysian Airline System Bhd. (MAS) are following suit to help counter fuel prices that have jumped about 30 percent in two years.



“When oil prices are high, you want your new airplane,” Cathay Pacific Chief Executive Officer John Slosar said this week in Beijing. “The last thing you want to do is hold onto your older planes.”

The Hong Kong-based airline said last month that it’s speeding up the retirement of its 21 passenger 747-400s. The carrier plans to shed nine through early 2014 as it adds more 777-300ERs for long-haul flights. Cathay is also retiring three -400 freighters this year because of the arrival of new 747-8 cargo planes.

1960s Development
The first four-engine 747-400 was delivered to Northwest Airlines in 1989. The standard version can fly as far as 7,260 nautical miles (13,450 kilometers), carrying 416 passengers in three classes, according to Boeing’s website. The Chicago-based planemaker delivered the last of 694 -400s in 2009. The original 747 was developed in the 1960s.

The passenger version of the newest 747, the -8, entered service this year. It can fly 467 passengers in three classes as far as 8,000 nautical miles. The twin-engine 777-330ER, first delivered in 2004, can carry 365 people as far as 7,930 nautical miles.

“We’re seeing a lot of airlines understanding that they need more fuel-efficient planes and that bodes very well for us,” Jim Albaugh, the head of Boeing’s commercial-plane business, said in a Bloomberg TV interview.

Newer aircraft use less fuel because of the development of more efficient engines and of lightweight materials. The 787 has a fuselage built from reinforced plastics, compared with the 747’s heavier aluminum shell.

Thai Airways
Thai Airways International Pcl (THAI) is in the process of selling four 747-400s and it will begin phasing out the model next year, outgoing-Chief Executive Officer Piyasvasti Amranand said May 31 in Bangkok. The carrier will begin receiving six on-order A380s this year.

Flying 747-400s now “doesn’t make sense,” Amranand said. “It’s obvious that with this sort of fuel price that it will cost you.”

Malaysian Airline System Bhd., which received its first A380 last month, will consume 1,181 barrels of fuel flying the 494-seat aircraft to London from Kuala Lumpur, according to Maybank Kim Eng Securities analyst Wong Chew Hann. The carrier’s 359-seat 747-400s use about 999 barrels of fuel on the same route, he said. Fuel accounts for about a third of airlines’ costs, according to the International Air Transport Association.




A380 Prestige
The A380, which surpassed the 747-400 as the world’s largest commercial plane on entering service in 2007, has become the flagship for carriers including Singapore Air and Qantas Airways Ltd. (QAN) Airlines still reliant on 747-400s are at a disadvantage in terms of costs and prestige, said Maybank’s Wong.

“It takes an A380 to beat an A380,” he wrote in a June 8 note.

European carriers, operating in slower growth markets than Asian airlines, are replacing 747-400s less quickly. British Airways, the biggest operator, will only retire the last of its fleet in about 10 years. The carrier has 55 747-400s, according to Ascend.

“It’s a great aircraft, customers love it,” said Willie Walsh, chief executive officer of BA’s parent International Consolidated Airlines Group SA. (IAG) “We could replace some of them with 777-300ERs, which we are doing, but we are not looking to replace all of them.”

‘Attractive Aircraft’
BA has also ordered 12 A380s, which will start arriving in about a year. Deutsche Lufthansa AG (LHA) has already begun flying A380s and it has ordered 747-8s. It will still continue using 747-400s, partly because it owns rather than leases them, said Chief Executive Officer Christoph Franz.

“We still think it’s an attractive aircraft and we will use it for quite a number of years,” Franz said. “They are very competitive aircraft in the market for us.”

Newer and smaller long-haul planes are also allowing carriers to open new routes that wouldn’t be profitable with the 747-400. All Nippon Airways Co. (9202), which will retire its last seven 747s by March 2016, is starting flights from Tokyo to San Jose and Seattle using new 787s. Japan Air is using Dreamliners to open routes to Boston and San Diego.

The move away from larger planes has curtailed sales of the A380 and the 747-8, according to Richard Aboulafia, vice president of the Teal Group, a Fairfax, Virginia forecaster. Airbus has sold 253 A380s. Boeing has orders for 106 747-8s, of which only 27 are for commercial passenger operations.

“The market for large aircraft in general is disappearing fast,” Aboulafia said. “Most of the 747-8 planes are cargo. There’s just a limited market.”

[captplaystation]

A colleague told me the other day he had just read an article suggesting seat-mile cost for the 748 was lower than the 380, don't know where the article was, but, if true, "the queen of the skies" still kicks the "Blobs" ass.

[jayceehi]

Still think that you can buy a 'lot' of fuel when flying a 'paid for' B744 rather than purchasing the 'flying forehead' that is already showing major design flaws mere years into service.......
Boeing builds a tough airplane that has served the world for many years......
Wonder how Airbus will compare??? Not so well me thinks!!
Just my .02 Cents worth

[KAG]

In the battle for commercial aircraft supremacy, Airbus has beaten Boeing for the ninth year running with a record number of orders in 2011. The European aviation giant beat its American rival by selling nearly double the amount of aircraft.



In what was the most successful year in the company's history, Airbus delivered a record 534 planes to 88 customers and booked 1,419 orders in total. Completed orders included 421 single aisle aircraft, 87 from its A330 Family and 26 A380 models.



Growth was fuelled by continued growth in emerging markets, specifically Asia Pacific which accounted for more than 30 percent of orders. The success of the Airbus' fuel efficient A320neo also positioned the company ahead of Boeing and its alternative, the 737 MAX





The 747-8 streched jumbo is for sure an improvement in efficiency, haven't the datas though (the airlines CEOs neither?).

The 737 MAX (the same engines as the A320 NEO?) will be welcomed too in this oil crisis.

Fact is the B747 is disappearing. Airlines are speaking. They buy either the A380, eiher the B777 instead.

[DaveReidUK]

An aircraft that first entered service nearly 25 years ago is now being superseded by newer, lighter, more fuel-efficient types ?

Gosh, who would have thought it ?

[KAG]

Right on, it just does make sense.

[WHBM]

Flying 747-400s now “doesn’t make sense,” Amranand said. “It’s obvious that with this sort of fuel price that it will cost you.”I haven't got a clue what this means.

Malaysian Airline System Bhd which received its first A380 last month, will consume 1,181 barrels of fuel flying the 494-seat aircraft to London from Kuala Lumpur, according to Maybank Kim Eng Securities analyst Wong Chew Hann. The carrier’s 359-seat 747-400s use about 999 barrels of fuel on the same route, he said. Fuel accounts for about a third of airlines’ costs, according to the International Air Transport Association.On these figures, the 747 uses about 15% more fuel per seat than the A380. If fuel is one third of costs then that is a 5% cost difference, which is honestly no big shakes. Offset against that is the purchase price of a new A380 against a fully depreciated 747, while on the revenue side, on a given departure you are not going to make the same overall yield per seat trying to fill 494 seats compared to 359.

[golfyankeesierra]

Somewhere is a threshold in the fuel price above which the 744 gets too costly.
With the rising fuelprice the threshold goes up, with dropping airframe value it goes down. Leasefirms will offer huge discounts to operators, making it even more interesting to keep them.
Availability of parts, crewcost, reliability rates, changes in infrastructure, everything changes the picture, not too easy to calculate.
What about sparefleet? To operate 10 long haulers you need one spare. For the price of one 380 sitting around you can have 10 747's.

[fotoguzzi]

[Not a pilot] Are the A380s flying with all seats filled? I know I have seen posts that hint that the answer may be no, but I do not know if there is a pprune.org thread which has covered this question decisively.

[Romulus]

Still think that you can buy a 'lot' of fuel when flying a 'paid for' B744 rather than purchasing the 'flying forehead' that is already showing major design flaws mere years into service.......
Boeing builds a tough airplane that has served the world for many years......
Wonder how Airbus will compare??? Not so well me thinks!!

Your thoughts about the flutter problem?

[Torquelink]

Interesting contrast between the views of e.g. Cathay and MAS on the one hand and BA and LH on the other on the future of the -400. As said elsewhere, you can buy an awful lot of fuel for the difference in capital cost between a written down -400 and a 777-300ER or A380. You can also afford to reduce utlilisation when times are tough. I guess one of the issues is that, as fuel prices go up, average long-haul pax densities seem to be going down. Was a time when the average seat count on a three class -400 was around 425 and now it's below 400. Airbus used to advertise the A380 as a 555 seater in three classes but, other than Emirates, few operators have more than 500 seats in the thing. If you have floor space to play with in order to provide first and business class pax with the space they apparently need and do so with a relatively lower reduction in overall seat count your aircraft will look relatively better.

[bvcu]

You also have to factor in maintenance costs , the 747-400 is still 60's design which structurally is different to the modern types both airbus and boeing . recall a few years ago boeing quoting a 40% reduction in maintenance costs on 777-300ER V 747-400. No 'D' checks on modern types. less structural repair work when the hours/cycles mount up.

[pax britanica]

I do not know if airlines in general care what Pax think but once you have flowna 380 everything else is a poor second best. Cannot speak for the 787 but those two aircraft dont compete. the 380 is much more comfortable than the 74, my previous favourite and way better than the 773 which is noisy, wallows around horribly and has a rubbish cabin conditioning system.

I think SQ have come to the same conclusion and dropped the 777 from ther LHR flights because peopel shun it for the 380. If that is general trend then pure/simplisitic airline economics do not tell the whole story

[No RYR for me]

4 Engine shop visits versus 2 already make a huge difference in Mx cost... :8

[pwalhx]

The question was aked do A380's fly full, I wonder what the relevance of this question is as you could ask do all 744's fly full I suspect the answer would be no.

On personal experice I have been on the EK A380 out of Manchester and onwards around a dozen times now and each time it has been pretty damn full particularly in Business, however I know there have been times of late when it isn't but that is the nature of travel.

Truth is thr 747 lovers will continue to say there is nothing better and the Airbus haters will say the aircraft arent as good. All subjective really.

[Dannyboy39]

Does anyone know anything about the Boeing Y3 project then?

[golfyankeesierra]

4 Engine shop visits versus 2 already make a huge difference in Mx cost...
This goes for the usual CF6 but I was told that the cost of maintaining the 777 engine are huge; a big disappointment. (Heard in the grapevine)

[WHBM]

This goes for the usual CF6 but I was told that the cost of maintaining the 777 engine are huge; a big disappointment. (Heard in the grapevine)
This is what happens when you get to be the monopoly engine supplier on a popular type. GE don't need to try to be price competitive with parts, etc, any more - why should they, nobody can go to Pratts or Rolls any longer for 777 engines.

[DaveReidUK]

nobody can go to Pratts or Rolls any longer for 777 engines


Strange - Boeing are still marketing the PW- and Trent-powered 777-200/-200ER/-300.

[giblets]

Strange - Boeing are still marketing the PW- and Trent-powered 777-200/-200ER/-300.

GE have the monopoly on the 200LR and 300ER, which account for ~50% of 777 orders (and far more than that (80%ish) in the last 5yrs).

However, the Trent has a de-facto monopoly on the A350, with over 500orders.

[fotoguzzi]

[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.

[PAXboy]

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.

[giblets]

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.

[Peter47]

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?

[davidjohnson6]

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...

[jabird]

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!

[giblets]

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)

[jabird]

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)

The proposal was for a high intensity, low cost service. Then came the bit about same price on all seats. I won't do them the favour of having their own thread, they don't deserve the publicity.

[CPTG747]

BOEING 747 A ERA GONE BY!

I remember 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 ;) .......

[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

[DaveReidUK]

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.

[Romulus]

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

Nope. I try and organise my flight times to coincide with the A380. Fantastic aircraft from this passenger's perspective.

[mutt]

We have operated the 747 series SP, 100, 200, 300,400 and our -800's will soon roll off the production line.... :):)

Mutt

[giblets]

As a SQ passenger, I'd rather fly in the 777 than the A380
Anyone who has travelled on AF or EK, with their 777's 10 across seats would probably disagree, bigger seats, quieter cabin, bring it on!

[jabird]

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.

I'm sure it can "do" it, but not if it also wants to carry passengers!

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.

[HZ123]

I am not sure that the airline is bothered by what the customer wants to fly on. The objective should be that all interiors appear to be identical.

[ZFT]

Whoever designed the 777 centre aisle overhead bins failed miserably there then! They are a bloody menace when open. Perfect height to smack your head into.

[jabird]

The objective should be that all interiors appear to be identical.

Except those in the premium cabins. Some interiors are more identical than others!

[Fairdealfrank]

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.

[MANFlyer]

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.

+1.

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.

[pwalhx]

-1 give me the A380 over the horrible 777 anytime

[adfly]

Who needs calm when you've got character!! I'll stick to 747's where possible :)

[panda-k-bear]

777 air conditioning noise is horrendous; the big engined variants (GE90-115B) vibrate in the cabin. As one who also is lucky enough to fly a lot in J-Class, the A380s peaceful interior and it's feeling of solidness in take-off, landing and turbulence (due to the active load alleviation?) wins it for me every step of the way.

And by the way - Lufthansa claims that the A380 has 6% lower fuel burn per seat than their 747-8i (published figure in Lufthansa Magazin). I humbly suggest that they are the only ones who today know this for certain, so I tend to believe them.

[adfly]

But you must also remember that the 748 has the same number of F and J seats as the A380 and as a result they take up a noticeably larger percentage of the overall seats which makes the fuel burn per seat seem worse than it would be if it had the same percentage of premium seats as the A380.

[PAXboy]

Some airlines might be saying that the 747 is history but that is probably PR for saying that they are buying new machines and want to make out that old = bad.

On the other hand, some carriers are trumpting the refurbishment of their 747s. VS have just emailed me with links to the refurbishment of 744 'Barbarella' (and what appears to be a D-check) and her return to service with the latest seating and in flight entertainment systems. (Rather than advertise for them, you can search for B's refit on a Tube that is near You.)

Long live the 747!

[GROUNDHOG]

I shall be flying long haul with BA in a couple of weeks because it is the 747 - Club World. Could have flown VS or AC but will fly 747 every time if poss.

Recently flew VS because BA used the 777 on the route, sorry just do not like the 777, much rather fly A380 so another -1!

[PAXboy]

Agreed GROUNDHOG. I travel much less than I used to but still favour the 747 over anything else. Time may prove other a/c the way it has proved this one.

[Throat]

I was quite looking forward to my A380 SQ Flights, so disappointed!, noisy, poor build quality old rattly unpleasant plane.

SQ 773 and A330 are so much better!!

[WHBM]

What is the actual cause of the continuous thunderous roar inside the 777, compared to the A330, or indeed even the 747 ? The racket is even more noticeable in the rear cabins. Is it the aircon, the way the engines are mounted, or what ? It is most noticeable, of course, if you take a flight on a carrier, eg Cathay, where you connect from one type to the other, so the difference is immediately apparent. It's a constant thing - Airbus used to refer to it some years ago in their advertising.

[NSEU]

I'd rather fly in a plane which is serviced by maintenance engineers who have some idea of what's going on inside the black boxes.

A380: Smoke and mirrors with aluminium wiring, ethernet and firewalls connecting them... oh, and on the ground, four external power leads to power them ... :ugh:

Hold on a minute, sorry, 3 hours, the computers are rebooting....

A good aircraft is one which has had all the bugs ironed out.
;)

[Groundloop]

A good aircraft is one which has had all the bugs ironed out.

Like Boeing's latest masterpiece - the Nightmareliner.:rolleyes:

[No RYR for me]

End of an era coming up?

Boeing warns about unclaimed 747-8 production slots (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-warns-about-unclaimed-747-8-production-slots-382245/)

[Heathrow Harry]

might be a sudden rush if the 787 problems continue - you won't be able to get a 777 or a 330 for love nor money

[Dannyboy39]

Heathrow Harry, no way. The B748 and B787 series are aimed at totally different markets, routes and customers. B747-8 is aimed at the 450 seat long haul market up against the Airbus 380. B787 is aimed at the 300 seat long/medium hall market up against the Airbus A330.

The most likely winner of the Dreamliner fiasco is the Airbus A350.