Boeing 747-8i, further orders in sight after Lufti?

[The AvgasDinosaur]

IMHO Boeing can't afford to drop the B-747-8I as the VVIP sales up to 9 now I believe are all for the Middle East, and Boeing won't want (CAN'T) afford to upset all those important people whose influence extends far beyond the single hull 747-8VIP they have on order. Huge current and future orders would be at stake. Boeing will not bite the hands that feed them.
Be lucky
David

[Rainboe]

Huge current and future orders would be at stake.

They're not exactly falling over themselves to get orders in for this dinosaur, are they? And with this recession? The 787, 777, A330, 350 and 380 will have the market. At some stage the 747, lovely beast that it is, really has to be taken to the vets and be put away kindly!

[The AvgasDinosaur]

They need not necessarily be 747 orders but Boeing orders in general that would be adversely affected by a cancellation.
Be lucky
David

[BOEING777X]

The 787, 777, A330, 350 and 380 will have the market.

?

The A380 has mustered just 200 sales after a decade on sale - the 747-8, both I/F have amassed over 50% of that total in just three years.

The A380, like the 747-8I are both stuck in a contracting niche...

[Rainboe]

The 380 time will come when the world comes out of this recession. At that time, the 747 design will be over 45 years old, the 380 will be stretched as the wing is designed to take, and its economics for mass market travel will be untouchable. Good though they are, 2 x 777 against 1 x 380 is no match.

[chornedsnorkack]

The current economic situation - economic crisis AND fall of fuel prices - seems to be the worst combination for A380, though.

[Skipness One Echo]

Perspective check oh panicking people! The 747 was born as the arse fell out of the world economy in the 70s. The A380 seems to be working well with Singapore and Emirates are keen to get started ASAP. Heathrow also will soon see the A380 in BA colours.
The current model is the 'A' model, it was always designed to stretch, much like the B777-200 was. Contrary to todays headlines the world is NOT ending (!)
Let's not do the primary school "Boeing" V "Airbus" namecalling. It'll settle into service well and I am looking forward to riding one soon.

Horses for courses peeps, let's alse remember the 737 is actually older than the 747 and is going strong. The question is whether the revamped 747 is a match for the competition rather than the actual age of the 747-100.....

[BOEING777X]

The 380 time will come when the world comes out of this recession.

So where were the orders in the last 10-12 years when the industry enjoyed the boom time?

Thats not to say the A380 is not needed - for some markets, it certainly is.

The problem however, is that fragmentation and development of smaller airports as opposed to investment in congested hubs makes the A380 a less attractive proposition when you have the likes of the A330, A350, 777 and 787 being able to fly virtually unrestricted to any airport - the same cannot be, and will never be said for the A380, and thats why the prospect of a stretched A380 seems even less plausible.

[chornedsnorkack]

when you have the likes of the A330, A350, 777 and 787 being able to fly virtually unrestricted to any airport - the same cannot be, and will never be said for the A380, and thats why the prospect of a stretched A380 seems even less plausible.

Which restrictions do you think apply?

A330 does have 79,8 m span, while the others are under 65 m. But even A330, B777 and B787 have over 60 m wingspan, except 787-3 which has 52 m span and also is awfully delayed.

As for wing loading, the huge A380 wing, with 845 sq m, gives it a wing loading lower than what 777-300ER has. So A380 can fly slow on approach and takeoff and operate from short runways.

As for pavement loading, A380 has 4 main legs, while B777 has 2.

Regarding A380-900, since very much of the stretch capacity is already built into A380-800, the stretch would give extra capacity at very little extra price.

[Whitehatter]

Stretch ability is already 'built in' to the A380 wing. Just as Boeing built it into the original 757 wing (and bungled it by not coming to market sooner IMO).

The proposed A380-900 would not need any surgery to the wing itself beyond adaptation to any uprated or updated power that Airbus wants to offer.

I will probably get shot down for this, but Boeing's major mistake with the 748i is not offering a power choice. Exclusivity with GENx makes it a little more difficult to sell to airlines who have ordered the Trent 1000 for the 787, or the Trent XWB for the A350. It jacks up costs having to introduce a new engine family, especially for smaller outfits. It doesn't apply so much to freight dogs as they won't be buying either midrange aircraft anyway for many years.

[Rainboe]

The problem however, is that fragmentation and development of smaller airports as opposed to investment in congested hubs makes the A380 a less attractive proposition when you have the likes of the A330, A350, 777 and 787 being able to fly virtually unrestricted to any airport - the same cannot be, and will never be said for the A380, and thats why the prospect of a stretched A380 seems even less plausible.

This shows a very blinkered view of 'regional point to point operations are the only way to make money!'. A very US view! US airlines have led the way with profitable operations for years (not)! BA has not retreated to 'Fortress London' only, Emirates and SIA don't really do 'point to point'. Face it, the big airlines buying big equipment have limited connection with the US market, and none with US carriers. The A380 will have a healthy long term market with non-US carriers, as it is already demonstrating. BA will eventually have over 50 (they don't know it yet!), Etihad, Emirates and SIA will be the giant operators of them. Many airlines are finding 777 small and not efficient for the future- it does not have the longhaul clout and appeal of the A380. The US airlines will continue operating light twins against other airlines big stuff! The future 747 just won't cut it, the 777 won't either. The 787 will be a great success for the thinner routes. But the 380 is what European and Asian markets will want.

[BOEING777X]

I want what you're smoking Sir: if you think my view was "blinkered", I cant yet think of an apt description of yours, except to say its so utterly wrong, its actually funny.

Emirates and SIA don't really do 'point to point'

Of course - except SQ flies to NYC from SIN nonstop on the A345, that is the epitome of point to point.

EK, which has been hit by the Boeing strike, was due to launch DXB-LAX/SFO using 777-200LR's.

Granted, P2P doesnt have to mean JUST long distances, where do you think LCC's emerged from?

Many airlines are finding 777 small and not efficient

Really? Please explain why the 777 has a bigger backlog than the A380, not to mention a bigger customer base and is more profitable a program than the A380 can ever dream of being.

longhaul clout and appeal of the A380

Yes, thats why ILFC CEO S. Udvar-Hazy slammed the A380 as having "dismal" cargo capability since it cant carry much given the extra pax/baggage on board

[Rainboe]

Well, let's start with 'smoking'- I don't smoke....anything. If we're going to involve ourselves with a discussion, how about setting an example and keeping it courteous? And we're adults, let's leave out the smileys.

Now, I think you have a very blinkered American-centred view which is regarded abroad as short sighted (myopic beyond US borders!). The rest of the world likes big aeroplanes, that's where the bulk of the 60s design 747 (which I flew for 18 years) were sold- non US. Nothing bigger than 777 suits the US market. The American airlines compete abroad with 767, 757 and 777. It loks, and is regarded, as 'cheap' from the POV of foreign impressions. And now, the big longhaul airlines are taking to the 380. Nothing will beat a single 380 on the Europe-Gulf (not the Gulf of Mexico!)-Far East, Australia and South Africa. 2 B777s still don't compare. As the world comes out of recession in a few years, the 380 will come into its own. Not to say the 787 will not eat up 60% of the middle market, but the 777 will then be a 20 year old aeroplane. If all Boeing can come up with then to compete with the 380 is a near 50 year old design, then it will be sad to see the company that brought us mass market travel throwing something so ancient into the market against the 380. We have seen Boeing goes in for 'spoiler' designs- the joke of the 'Sonic Cruiser' still reverberates! But flogging a dead program like the 747? Please!

All the European airlines plus Gulf airlines plus Far East airlines are operating hub and spoke. PtPs are very minor operations. American airlines have yet to show international PtPs prove profitable. Are any making money? It's generally expected a big one is going to go under soon.

A stretched 380 should manage more cargo. It is primarily a passenger vehicle. The 777 has had trouble with cargo- we used to manage far more on a 747 than our 77s could take on long range.

The 380 is still at a very early stage of its development. The 747 nearly closed Boeing down more than once and took years to get going. Considering its step forward in capability, the 380 is doing well, it's a long term program. Great though it is, the ageing 777 just does not have the same passenger appeal. I would always chose it over the 777 given the choice.

[BOEING777X]

Sure, no problem, I'll leave out the smileys, solely used to make the discussion light hearted.

Aside from the fact you didnt respond to my other prior points, I'll attempt to provide some opposing/differing views to your post.

The rest of the world likes big aeroplanes

Perhaps they do - empirical evidence of orders over the last 30 years shows seat count falling per airplane, meaning more orders for twin engine, long haul jets, not bigger ones.

Nothing will beat a single 380 on the Europe-Gulf

For mass transport, I dont disagree. However, airlines are also conscience of keeping slots at key hubs to provide flexibility in frequencies - (part of the reason BA/AA say they wont divest slots for ATI immunity etc.)

However, to suggest the A380 is the answer to most routes, as you allude (unless I interpret you incorrectly), is wrong - the fact that there are more twin aisle, twinjet orders and in service is ample evidence that flexibility and frequencies is more important than mass transport between two destinations.

Passengers will always want choice of when to travel.

but the 777 will then be a 20 year old aeroplane

Yet the likes of the 777-300ER is racking up orders far more than the A380 has, despite the fact the 777-300ER has been around for 50% less time than the former.

Age means very little. The A320 is over 20 years old and sells very, very well indeed - as does the even older 737.

The 777 has had trouble with cargo- we used to manage far more on a 747 than our 77s could take on long range.

That depends on configuration - I dont agree with that (blanket?) statement, because of the carriers I have worked with/for that have 777's and 747's, they'll argue the exact opposite.

But flogging a dead program like the 747? Please!

Dead? Methinks not. There have been more 747 orders (pax & F) compared to the A380 since the latters launch in 2000.

To bring us back full circle on this thread, the 747 may do well as a freighter as opposed to pax airplane (the orders show that) - but to suggest its a dead horse is nonsense.

The cost alone and ROI on the 747-8I/F will be reached far sooner than will the A380, if ever.

Fragmentation is a fact - its not "US-centric". The orders for the 777, 787, A330, A350 are clear indicators that flexibility is critical.

Whatever way its dressed up, the A380 is not everyones cup of tea - and thats by and large why the 747-8I has struggled for sales because it doesnt provide a flexible solution as the other jets named above. They require fare less fuel for the same journey and produce far higher yields than any A380 configuration.

[Rainboe]

Well what point did I miss? The 777 pprogram is a mature aeroplane. The A380 is still in the equivalent of the 747-100 stage- a limited payload underpowered first stage. When it is stretched and powered appropriately, it will do the job. Look at the faith in it with Asian and Gulf airlines. The European airlines haven't even started yet. The program is not in a willy waving contest with the 777, which holds the 'larger medium segment'. They do different things. The 747 is 'large'. It will still be a near 50 year old design in 5 or 6 years, and it will have commensurate passenger appeal! The world deserves better- it has it in the 380.

[Skipness One Echo]

BOEING 777X : Methinks no argument will get through to someone with a Boeing username. You might as well try and argue to a Celtic fan that Rangers are a better team. ( Or Man Utd v Man City : Insert local allegory )

It's worth remembering that Bob Crandall was fond of saying that putting the 767 into long haul would kill off the 747. To an extent that's true, but the the 777-300 became the 747 replacment so the market for LARGE aircraft is slightly different from point to point smaller ones. There's clearly room for both, the A380 has been proving itself on the line for less than a year but is now becoming quite the aircraft to fly on. Every time I see the thing it's noticeably quieter and more agile than the corresponding B747-400s powering out of Heathrow.
I agree that the engine exclusivity is not the best thing to have on your aircraft. It worked for the B777-300ER as it soon became evident that the machine was incredibly capable, in a different league from the A340-600 performance wise. The same cannot be claimed of the new B747 and the A380.

[BOEING777X]

The A380 is still in the equivalent of the 747-100 stage- a limited payload underpowered first stage.

When it is stretched and powered appropriately, it will do the job.

Then one must ask whether Airbus did the right thing to launch the -800 when the bigger version would have been more to the marketplaces' liking, no?

Look at the faith in it with Asian and Gulf airlines.

Perhaps a moot point to some, but the M.East carriers have a vested interest given stakes in EADS by their respective governments.

It will still be a near 50 year old design in 5 or 6 years

What does that have to do with the price of bread?

As noted prior, the A320 and 737 families are all over 20 years old and continue to sell well thanks to their evolution.

To dismiss the 747-8I/F family which has racked up over half the orders the A380 has in less than half the time of its existence is hilarious.

The world deserves better- it has it in the 380.

Indeed - and the poor orderbook shows just how much of the world wants it.

Skipness -

Methinks no argument will get through to someone with a Boeing username

Its just a log on name of an airplane I happen to like. Doesnt mean much else.

As i stated prior, I agree, there are routes for the A380's presence, its not suited to the majority of those currently flown by other longer ranged jets. If it was, where are the orders for it?

I agree that the engine exclusivity is not the best thing to have on your aircraft.

Although the A350XWB doesnt have a second choice engine yet, it certainly hasnt hurt RR by being the defacto monopoly engine of choice.

Equally, of the 70+ orders for the 747-8F, the customers knew there'd only be the GEnx on it, yet still bought it. Exclusivity isnt that important anymore - efficiency is.

There was a time when the likes of Cathay Pacific wouldnt order an airplane if it didnt have RR engines on it - yet it has 10x 747-8F's on order, and something like orders/leases for around 30 777-300ER's too.

I apologise if this has inadvertently skewed to a 777/A380 thread, but for a second time to bring the thread back to its origins, whether the 747-8I sells or not, the saving grace is that sales of the -8F continue and the entire project is a mere fraction of the ballooned costs of the A380, which ironically has no other model to supplement/complement it.

As a pax airplane, no doubt, the A380 is good, but its a relic whose longevity will not match that of the 747.

We can quip all we like about how "old" the 747 design is, but the fact remains its dual function as pax/freighter is far better than the obsolete design in the A380 that, after less than ten years from concept to reality has inhereted a marketplace that is continually contracting, not expanding - hence why EADS will almost never break even.

[Rainboe]

Well, the only way to find out is to wait 10 years! The 380 is developing similarly to the early 747 program, but without the engines breaking down all over the world. I saw that program from the beginning and I see little difference now apart from the 380 settling in far better and actually flying full as opposed to the 747 which flew empty. I remember passengering in it in the early 70s (curiously during a severe recession-73- when it wasn't selling very well) and having whole cabin sections to myself. Just as the 747 then had competitors being developed (DC10 and ....dare I say...Tristar) which were supposed to be 'better' and more sensibly sized, the 380 has a competitor in the 777-300. The supposedly 'better' planes never lasted then for a variety of reasons. But the 380 has the 'big' market to itself. I'm afraid size wins in the absolute economy stakes.

As i stated prior, I agree, there are routes for the A380's presence, its not suited to the majority of those currently flown by other longer ranged jets. If it was, where are the orders for it?

Most of the orders have come so far from 3 airlines- 2 Gulf and SIA. The rest of the world has barely started.

Maybe one day someone will resurrect this thread for examination! But for now, your tone needs 'toning' down. Your frantic support for the 777 seems a bit hysterical. Do you have a 'thing' about it?

[BOEING777X]

Most of the orders have come so far from 3 airlines- 2 Gulf and SIA. The rest of the world has barely started.

Stands to good reason and ask why they havent yet ordered despite it being around for almost a decade. Simple fact is that its not designed for every customer.

Sales of the more popular twins I mentioned have far more broader appeal.

The fact that both A350 and 787 have had rapid sales success is because airlines dont want to wait a decade and then make a move to order - better to get ahead and queue up first.

Frantic support for the 777? Not quite!

Same could apply to your support of the A380, but I digress...

[mutt]

but the M.East carriers have a vested interest given stakes in EADS by their respective governments.

. Thats quite a sweeping statement, can you prove it?

Mutt