QF 747-8
Nunc est bibendum
Thread Starter
QF 747-8
Word on the street is that the 747-8 is a 'no-brainer' for QF- according to third hand rumours attributed to various management pilots! 
Orders may still be 12 months away but some see it and the 777 as a natural replacement for the classic and the older 744's in the QF fleet!
Lots of water to pass under the bridge yet but I thought it'd be nice to have something positive about QF for a change!
Orders may still be 12 months away but some see it and the 777 as a natural replacement for the classic and the older 744's in the QF fleet!Lots of water to pass under the bridge yet but I thought it'd be nice to have something positive about QF for a change!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 99
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is exactly what Qantas management should be striving for. They should never have ordered the A380 due to the costs of placing the necessary infrastructure in place whereas the 747/800 carries only slightly less passengers with a lower seat cost and the company is already set up for 747 operations.
I have also heard through my business aquantances that the Qantas board is giving serious consideration to replacing Mr. Dixon with Sunfish, due to his obvious impeccable management skills, on the proviso that he cleans up his public dialogue.
I have also heard through my business aquantances that the Qantas board is giving serious consideration to replacing Mr. Dixon with Sunfish, due to his obvious impeccable management skills, on the proviso that he cleans up his public dialogue.
No, no, they should never have ordered the 707 due to the costs of placing the necessary infrastructure in place. Should have stuck with the Constellation, no the DC4. 
Evertonian
Is it true they come with a reduced MTOW...on account of the lightly paid future operators of the type?
(Oooh...that's gotta sting!)
(Oooh...that's gotta sting!)
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Where I'm not alarmed
Posts: 454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scumfish has made us all laugh!
I'd like to see that.
I'd like to see them too.
Would like to see that three.
I have also heard through my business aquantances that the Qantas board is giving serious consideration to replacing Mr. Dixon with Sunfish
obvious impeccable management skills
he cleans up his public dialogue
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Would probably be logical in terms of slotting into the fleet, capacity-wise. That is:
737-800
787-8
787-9
777-300
747-8
A380
… but it’s still probably more airframe/engine combinations than you’d probably go for by choice.
That said, if there is the commonality between the 787 family and the 747-8 which Boeing is crowing about (and quite possibly some cockpit commonality amongst 747-8, 777 and 787) then maybe… And if they go for Trents on everything (except 777LRs), that increases engine commonality… so possibly.
Wonder what Mr Boeing might be tempted to throw in as a sweetener for a loyal launch customer…
Actually given that BA and Cathay have both been mentioned re 747-8, maybe there’s some sort of oneworld deal in the works. I know nussink – just speculation on my part.
Would there be a place for A330?
Nice new toy, though, Keg??!!
737-800
787-8
787-9
777-300
747-8
A380
… but it’s still probably more airframe/engine combinations than you’d probably go for by choice.
That said, if there is the commonality between the 787 family and the 747-8 which Boeing is crowing about (and quite possibly some cockpit commonality amongst 747-8, 777 and 787) then maybe… And if they go for Trents on everything (except 777LRs), that increases engine commonality… so possibly.
Wonder what Mr Boeing might be tempted to throw in as a sweetener for a loyal launch customer…
Actually given that BA and Cathay have both been mentioned re 747-8, maybe there’s some sort of oneworld deal in the works. I know nussink – just speculation on my part.
Would there be a place for A330?
Nice new toy, though, Keg??!!
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: down south
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understood that the 747-8 was only being offerred with the GEnx engines. So I guess if QF choose that engine for the 787 then ther are some economies of scale that could work for them.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by botero
I understood that the 747-8 was only being offerred with the GEnx engines. So I guess if QF choose that engine for the 787 then ther are some economies of scale that could work for them.
Sorry Mr B - I should've said Mr Baseler...
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The stretched version of the A380 looks nice, but its really not a winner in my books and doesnt have that majestic grace of a 74.
Go the 748 i say! bit like the ole 250 ticker in the fords, old slug which is proven to be a nice well Engine with a bit of a face lift every now and then but still essentially the same engine that was released in the 60's. HFV6 in the Commodores, what a rattly peice of garbage. All well and good to talk about advancements in technology and all that nonsense, but at the end of the day, if it aint broken dont fix it, and if you can improve on something that has already shown itself capable and cost effective, then why start from scratch?
Go the 748 i say! bit like the ole 250 ticker in the fords, old slug which is proven to be a nice well Engine with a bit of a face lift every now and then but still essentially the same engine that was released in the 60's. HFV6 in the Commodores, what a rattly peice of garbage. All well and good to talk about advancements in technology and all that nonsense, but at the end of the day, if it aint broken dont fix it, and if you can improve on something that has already shown itself capable and cost effective, then why start from scratch?
Originally Posted by Taildragger67
Would probably be logical in terms of slotting into the fleet, capacity-wise. That is:
737-800
787-8
787-9
777-300
747-8
A380
… but it’s still probably more airframe/engine combinations than you’d probably go for by choice.
737-800
787-8
787-9
777-300
747-8
A380
… but it’s still probably more airframe/engine combinations than you’d probably go for by choice.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
GB... my take on it is that Seattle are a bit loathe to run with the 787-10 as it would probably kill the 777; but I agree with your idea.
I'd been thinking since they started the 787 programme that it would form the basis of an entirely new product range. The 757/767 were due to end their run, so that's where they started; the 747 needed a facelift, maybe we're seeing that; Toulouse is already looking at a new single-aisle, so that would've been next; then the 777 (by then, a 25-y-o design) would've come round for replacement by a 787-family derivative. Maybe EK and SQ (who are the onees pressing for the 787-10, despite large 777 fleets) are just mucking the timing and order up a bit.
I'd been thinking since they started the 787 programme that it would form the basis of an entirely new product range. The 757/767 were due to end their run, so that's where they started; the 747 needed a facelift, maybe we're seeing that; Toulouse is already looking at a new single-aisle, so that would've been next; then the 777 (by then, a 25-y-o design) would've come round for replacement by a 787-family derivative. Maybe EK and SQ (who are the onees pressing for the 787-10, despite large 777 fleets) are just mucking the timing and order up a bit.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Mars
Age: 20
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some interesting thoughts. I'll go out on a limb- QF will not buy the 777. Never. They've had plenty of opportunities and the bean counters say the numbers don't work. The only one that seems a shot is the 200LR. With fuel they way it is, I doubt the economics of ULR aircraft will stand up to scrutiny. I think a 787-10 is much more likely. As for whether Boeing will build it, read Baseler's Blog on the web site and he's on record as saying he thinks they will and I think QF will buy it, along with more 380s and 748s for the long haul fleet. Cheers
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hold in my hot little hands an Airbus brochure entitled "The Future has Arrived" which was in the entry to the Constellation Cafe on the QF Jet Base.
Basically this Airbus propoganda brochure really attempts very unconvincingly to stick the knife into the B747-800.
It basically has a photo of a QF A380 on the cover and shows unproven statistics of the A380 compared to the B744 as well as B748.
Airbus claim it to have a 12% cost advantage to a B748 for a 6000nm sector and also state that Boeing's cost analysis for the B748 are "incredible".
Isnt this pretty brazen from an aircraft manufacturer that has never produced one aircraft that lived up to design specifications.......ever?
Jesus H !! When you hear about a company like Air France being launch customer for the B777-300ER and then publicly stating how thrilled they are when they find it to be about 3% more efficient in terms of fuel and range above what Boeing predicted then you really have to sit up and take notice.
Besides, the A380 is down from about 550 pax to 450 pax now......not a huge improvement over the B748 in my book.
Maybe the stretch A380 will offer an improvement but that is years away.
Basically this Airbus propoganda brochure really attempts very unconvincingly to stick the knife into the B747-800.
It basically has a photo of a QF A380 on the cover and shows unproven statistics of the A380 compared to the B744 as well as B748.
Airbus claim it to have a 12% cost advantage to a B748 for a 6000nm sector and also state that Boeing's cost analysis for the B748 are "incredible".
Isnt this pretty brazen from an aircraft manufacturer that has never produced one aircraft that lived up to design specifications.......ever?
Jesus H !! When you hear about a company like Air France being launch customer for the B777-300ER and then publicly stating how thrilled they are when they find it to be about 3% more efficient in terms of fuel and range above what Boeing predicted then you really have to sit up and take notice.
Besides, the A380 is down from about 550 pax to 450 pax now......not a huge improvement over the B748 in my book.
Maybe the stretch A380 will offer an improvement but that is years away.
Evertonian
With fuel they way it is, I doubt the economics of ULR aircraft will stand up to scrutiny.
Article on Freight Industry targets new generation aircraft
From Asia Pacific Aviation Business Magazine
Airbus A380F Vs B747-8F
The A380F will enter service in the third quarter of 2008 and the B747-8F the following year.
Airbus believes that Boeing based the new generation 747-8 on a 30 year old airframe design and while the European company does not feel an "old" aircraft (the Intercontinental) can threaten the A380 airliner, conversions of older aircraft account for a substantial proportion of the aircraft entering service as freighters, and the challenge that the B747-8F poses to the A380F concerns the company. Still Airbus does not forsee changes to the A380F in response to the B747-8F.
Physical dimensions roughly compare, the 747-8F being slightly longer than the A380-800F (75.3m v 72.7m); but the A380 features a greater wingspan (79.8m v 68.5m) and height (24.1m v 19.4m).
The A380F carries a bigger payload than the 747-8F (153t v 140t) but MTOW are 590t and 436t respectively, making the 747-8F structurally more efficient.
Boeing gives the 747-8F empty weight at 86t less than the A380F, and says this would allow 25% lower fuel burn per ton, and therefore 20% lower trip costs and 23% lower ton mile costs than the A380F.
The A380F boasts significantly greater payload volume and range.
The list prices range from $265-275m for the 747-8F to $272-292m for the A380F.
The A380F will accomodate only 2.4m high pallets (like other freighters), but Airbus counters that this would suffice for most pallets.
Also, although the A380F uses a wider main deck cargo door (4.27m wide) than the 747-8F (3.4m), it does not feature a nose door. Further, it requires a special high loader to reach the upper deck (at 8 metres above the ground), the company encouraging equipment manufacturers to develop a portable mechanism, to be carried in the aircraft's belly, to allow existing loaders to reach the upper deck.
Airbus estimates the the A380f can be turned around in 91 minutes, the same time required for 747 conversions, but 10 minutes more than nose door equiped 747-400F's.
Airbus A380F Vs B747-8F
The A380F will enter service in the third quarter of 2008 and the B747-8F the following year.
Airbus believes that Boeing based the new generation 747-8 on a 30 year old airframe design and while the European company does not feel an "old" aircraft (the Intercontinental) can threaten the A380 airliner, conversions of older aircraft account for a substantial proportion of the aircraft entering service as freighters, and the challenge that the B747-8F poses to the A380F concerns the company. Still Airbus does not forsee changes to the A380F in response to the B747-8F.
Physical dimensions roughly compare, the 747-8F being slightly longer than the A380-800F (75.3m v 72.7m); but the A380 features a greater wingspan (79.8m v 68.5m) and height (24.1m v 19.4m).
The A380F carries a bigger payload than the 747-8F (153t v 140t) but MTOW are 590t and 436t respectively, making the 747-8F structurally more efficient.
Boeing gives the 747-8F empty weight at 86t less than the A380F, and says this would allow 25% lower fuel burn per ton, and therefore 20% lower trip costs and 23% lower ton mile costs than the A380F.
The A380F boasts significantly greater payload volume and range.
The list prices range from $265-275m for the 747-8F to $272-292m for the A380F.
The A380F will accomodate only 2.4m high pallets (like other freighters), but Airbus counters that this would suffice for most pallets.
Also, although the A380F uses a wider main deck cargo door (4.27m wide) than the 747-8F (3.4m), it does not feature a nose door. Further, it requires a special high loader to reach the upper deck (at 8 metres above the ground), the company encouraging equipment manufacturers to develop a portable mechanism, to be carried in the aircraft's belly, to allow existing loaders to reach the upper deck.
Airbus estimates the the A380f can be turned around in 91 minutes, the same time required for 747 conversions, but 10 minutes more than nose door equiped 747-400F's.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Mars
Age: 20
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BH- For a given number of pax an ULR A/C is the way to go, but that's not how QF operates. Take the 200LR SYD-LHR the figures being quoted were about 180-200 pax and using 150+ tonnes of fuel. Now, fly the same A/C to LHR but stop in HKG. On that flight you can carry 300 pax + freight and your fuel burn only increases marginally. That's what I meant. Obviously I'm rounding and estimating but the exact figures work out the same. That's the 2 year old martian view anyway.