Is the 747-8X finally killed ?
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A pity that the A380 really can't fit well into a lot of airports
The 747 used to be so limited in its operations! Yet again, we've been there before! And the solution will be the same. More and more airports will want the prestige of the A380 operating there, and they will accommodate it.
I've heard all the same dire predictions before about the 747. Whatever became of it?
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are still missing the point Rainboe, the A380 is NOT the B747 replacement and no one is suggesting that a forty year old aircraft is a contender. The A380 is in a class of it's own, a much smaller class than Airbus ever imagined too! For the few remaining long haul carriers a few A380s for specific routes, (Australia etc) but the bulk of those carriers fleets will be the big twins. Honest!
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The A380 is in a class of it's own, a much smaller class than Airbus ever imagined too! For the few remaining long haul carriers a few A380s for specific routes, (Australia etc) but the bulk of those carriers fleets will be the big twins.
Airbus has very well positioned its range to cover every single sector. What has Boeing done? Are the 737 and the 777 supposed to cover the whole market? Because that is the only hardware moving now! The 75/76 range was prematurely terminated after letting it technically stagnate. Everything was poured into the 787- that program has become a comedy show now. If anybody thinks the future consists of point to point A350/787, then they haven't grasped the concept of the expansion after this recession!
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rainboe you have your blinkers on! The A380 was around long before the recession started, in fact the recession has nothing to do with the lack of A380 orders, Airbus mis-read the market. Boeing offered them a consortium, which AB refused, so Boeing dropped out of the VLA competition secure in the knowledge that without them it would fail, no American buyers, think Concord.
Right now AB are up to their necks in debt and the A380 isn't going to get them out of it, not now and not in a few years time, either.
Right now AB are up to their necks in debt and the A380 isn't going to get them out of it, not now and not in a few years time, either.
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 747 flew in 69. The recession hit hard in 73. Why should AB accept a consortium from a company with no VLA contender? They have the market for themselves, and have seen it will be a long term moneyspinner over the next 40 years, with no opposition. All without American buyers- the 747 succeeded on foreign orders, not American buyers. American airlines cannot afford this plane- too big for their domestic market. They will continue to operate 777s in opposition, along with an exciting range of archaic 767/757!
So AB is in debt. Er...so is Boeing, and so was Boeing in the 70s when Seattle went very dark. Quite how close Boeing came to full bankruptcy is still not generally known. But they persevered and had a moneyspinner on their hands.
The 380 is a superb achievement. AB deserves success with it. I don't understand the harping on about failure- no aircraft program goes into profit for years. AB has concluded they will succeed with it- I totally agree. I see exactly the same course of events repeated 38 years later, in all respects. it's uncanny- the timing, the recession, the state of the industry, the future potential. And the same outcome. So sorry if it is boring, but to calls of failure, there will be the same robust defence, because although some can't see it yet, they have a winner. Look at the orders. Still to get underway with the non-US majors. And then fleet increases.
So AB is in debt. Er...so is Boeing, and so was Boeing in the 70s when Seattle went very dark. Quite how close Boeing came to full bankruptcy is still not generally known. But they persevered and had a moneyspinner on their hands.
The 380 is a superb achievement. AB deserves success with it. I don't understand the harping on about failure- no aircraft program goes into profit for years. AB has concluded they will succeed with it- I totally agree. I see exactly the same course of events repeated 38 years later, in all respects. it's uncanny- the timing, the recession, the state of the industry, the future potential. And the same outcome. So sorry if it is boring, but to calls of failure, there will be the same robust defence, because although some can't see it yet, they have a winner. Look at the orders. Still to get underway with the non-US majors. And then fleet increases.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Swindon
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting debate...
I personally think the A380 will be a success. You just have to look at the big two long haul airlines in the UK; BA and Virgin. Moving into fleet renewal for their 747's they have both ordered A380's. There are a lot of 747-400's flying around in the world and surely the A380 will be first choice for their replacement. I accept that the large body twins are a much better proposition these days but you still need an aircraft for high density routes that can accomodate a significant number of multi-class passengers.. On that score the A380 is alone.
Virgin can fill 4 747's a day to MCO alone. Don't see the 787 replacing this...
RP
I personally think the A380 will be a success. You just have to look at the big two long haul airlines in the UK; BA and Virgin. Moving into fleet renewal for their 747's they have both ordered A380's. There are a lot of 747-400's flying around in the world and surely the A380 will be first choice for their replacement. I accept that the large body twins are a much better proposition these days but you still need an aircraft for high density routes that can accomodate a significant number of multi-class passengers.. On that score the A380 is alone.
Virgin can fill 4 747's a day to MCO alone. Don't see the 787 replacing this...
RP
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: AEP
Age: 80
Posts: 1,420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The future...?
What will happen to the 747...?
Maybe when the world economy settles back to normal, will still attract customers.
xxx
The A-380 will be the aircraft of airline's prestige.
Although in a different configuration than today's operation.
In the early days, the 747-100/200 were flown with 320 passenger seats.
In later years, higher density seating i.e. 450 passengers became common.
I see the same thing happening in a few years to the A-380.
There will be A-380s configured for 650-800 passengers.
They will fit perfect for high density routes.
Typical NewYork to London, Shanghai to Los Angeles.
xxx
The 747 (older and newer) will fit similar markets but with less seats capacity.
Should I say Seattle to Paris, or Acapulco to Copenhagen...?
Do not forget the cargo 747s, either original 747F, or converted planes.
Yet I am certain, there will still be 747s flying in 2025 or 2030.
But yes, the A-380 will be flying well after the 747.
xxx
One thing. There is a type of aircraft needed that is still missing.
An airplane capable of direct, point to point from any point to any point on earth.
Meaning you need 20,000+ km range with full payload. Say 250/300 pax configuration.
An airplane that could do, non-stop Sao Paulo to Tokyo. Unrestricted, anywhere.
This would require 3 or 4 engines, to avoid ETOPS restrictions on some sectors.
Will it be known as the A-370, or the B-797ER...?
xxx
I will never see it... but you kids will.
Happy contrails
Maybe when the world economy settles back to normal, will still attract customers.
xxx
The A-380 will be the aircraft of airline's prestige.
Although in a different configuration than today's operation.
In the early days, the 747-100/200 were flown with 320 passenger seats.
In later years, higher density seating i.e. 450 passengers became common.
I see the same thing happening in a few years to the A-380.
There will be A-380s configured for 650-800 passengers.
They will fit perfect for high density routes.
Typical NewYork to London, Shanghai to Los Angeles.
xxx
The 747 (older and newer) will fit similar markets but with less seats capacity.
Should I say Seattle to Paris, or Acapulco to Copenhagen...?
Do not forget the cargo 747s, either original 747F, or converted planes.
Yet I am certain, there will still be 747s flying in 2025 or 2030.
But yes, the A-380 will be flying well after the 747.
xxx
One thing. There is a type of aircraft needed that is still missing.
An airplane capable of direct, point to point from any point to any point on earth.
Meaning you need 20,000+ km range with full payload. Say 250/300 pax configuration.
An airplane that could do, non-stop Sao Paulo to Tokyo. Unrestricted, anywhere.
This would require 3 or 4 engines, to avoid ETOPS restrictions on some sectors.
Will it be known as the A-370, or the B-797ER...?
xxx
I will never see it... but you kids will.
Happy contrails
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.. not to mention the prospect of newer VLAs being developed
Its not a matter of underestimating the market or not having the mental capacity to imagine that such a large plane could be successful, but rather one of bad timing.......
Then again, post-recession we could see a huge number of orders, but I think the airlines will cling onto their cash desperately for some time.
As for the 748, it'll most likely happen, in both forms. Boeing have already sourced most of the funding and the freighter sales have just about justified its existence. Will we see more 748i sales? probably not
Its not a matter of underestimating the market or not having the mental capacity to imagine that such a large plane could be successful, but rather one of bad timing.......
Then again, post-recession we could see a huge number of orders, but I think the airlines will cling onto their cash desperately for some time.
As for the 748, it'll most likely happen, in both forms. Boeing have already sourced most of the funding and the freighter sales have just about justified its existence. Will we see more 748i sales? probably not
Those airlines you talk about have to have the equipment in place to take advantage of the upturn, when it comes. No point in hanging onto cash when there are hordes of people wanting to fly.
LH is the only passenger orderer of the 748. A hundred or so cargo sales.....but....er cargo has suddenly collapsed. Cargo planes are being re-assigned and grounded. I think you will find those orders will be renegotiated or cancelled. The 747-400 makes a fine cargo conversion- all those cheap retired ex-passenger ones will fill the cargo market. My guess is the 748 is unlikely to find a market other than.....Air Force One!
Boeing dropped out of the VLA competition secure in the knowledge that without them it would fail, no American buyers, think Concord.
One thing. There is a type of aircraft needed that is still missing.
An airplane capable of direct, point to point from any point to any point on earth.
Meaning you need 20,000+ km range with full payload. Say 250/300 pax configuration.
An airplane that could do, non-stop Sao Paulo to Tokyo. Unrestricted, anywhere.........I will never see it... but you kids will
An airplane capable of direct, point to point from any point to any point on earth.
Meaning you need 20,000+ km range with full payload. Say 250/300 pax configuration.
An airplane that could do, non-stop Sao Paulo to Tokyo. Unrestricted, anywhere.........I will never see it... but you kids will
Such an aircraft does not exist because there is no demand for it.
There are very few operations left today which have to stop for fuel on the way because there is no capable aircraft. Europe to Australia/New Zealand and a couple of others are about it. There is not the demand for such world-spanning routes to justify an aircraft capable of them. Furthermore, over the years the proportion of what little business there is has been steadily whittled away by carriers such as Singapore or Emirates whose hubs along the way enable them to provide far more one-stop connections than the carriers based at either end can do.
So a friend who lives in Brisbane, Australia, and vsits Glasgow in Scotland periodically, now finds Emirates one-stop route through Dubai far superior to anything that BA or Qantas can offer, or could offer if they did Sydney to London nonstop. And the additional hour or two of the stop is far less of an impact on a 28-hour flight than it is on an 8-hour flight.
Notice what thin sellers the two current ultra-long haulers, the 777-200LR and the A340-500 have been.
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good point!
Groundloop, the twin Airbuses and 767s flying for US carriers are not really VLAs. These days they are mediums haulers. The US carriers insist on thrashing their point-to-point theory. It is not a profitable operation judging by their losses! The main route hub operation preferred by foreign carriers is what will carry the VLA market. Even the 777-300 will not match a high capacity A380 for all the 'flag' carriers- why has Emirates gone for the A380 in such a big way when it has a large fleet of 777-300s already? The scale of the 380 operation proposed for Emirates and SIA, ultimately copied down the years by the big non-US flag carriers and all the other second tier carriers with pretensions to street cred are going to give the 380 a long and steady sales profile. The 787 with its 900 orders is impressive, but people are forgetting there is going to be room in the market for them all. But the flagship A380 fleets are going to grow and grow.
The US is no longer the world leading market for jets controlling what the world has and uses. The 707/747 jet age is slipping into a new era.
Groundloop, the twin Airbuses and 767s flying for US carriers are not really VLAs. These days they are mediums haulers. The US carriers insist on thrashing their point-to-point theory. It is not a profitable operation judging by their losses! The main route hub operation preferred by foreign carriers is what will carry the VLA market. Even the 777-300 will not match a high capacity A380 for all the 'flag' carriers- why has Emirates gone for the A380 in such a big way when it has a large fleet of 777-300s already? The scale of the 380 operation proposed for Emirates and SIA, ultimately copied down the years by the big non-US flag carriers and all the other second tier carriers with pretensions to street cred are going to give the 380 a long and steady sales profile. The 787 with its 900 orders is impressive, but people are forgetting there is going to be room in the market for them all. But the flagship A380 fleets are going to grow and grow.
The US is no longer the world leading market for jets controlling what the world has and uses. The 707/747 jet age is slipping into a new era.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Brisbane
Age: 49
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing dropped out of the VLA competition secure in the knowledge that without them it would fail, no American buyers, think Concord.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: AEP
Age: 80
Posts: 1,420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Point to point
WHBM -
xxx
Oh, you are correct, no demand for them - But shall I mention...
xxx
Tokyo to Sao Paulo -
Sao Paulo has the largest ethnic Japanese population outside Japan.
Also large Korean population. Flights to Seoul...
Varig used to fly to NRT with 747 and MD-11, with stop in Los Angeles.
Currently operated by JAL and KAL, daily flights, stops in Los Angeles.
Flight time would be 20 hours. Good traffic volume.
xxx
Buenos Aires to Tel Aviv -
BsAs has largest Jewish population (out of Israel) after New York.
No flights currently operated. Requires connection flight in Europe.
Would be a 16 hours long flight because N. Africa countries deny overflight.
xxx
Probably other pairings. I am not a traffic expert.
The idea is to avoid connections/fuel stops required in USA and Europe.
Heard many UK natives in Perth (Aus) need to stop in UAE for LHR.
Lebanese/Syrian ethnic population in Colombia/Venezuela to Beirut.
Avoiding "big hubs" concept for travel. US "point to point" traffic concept.
xxx
Just an idea. Next 20 years...maybe...?
Happy contrails
Forgot to mention -
Paris direct to Tahiti - excellent traffic, presently stops in Los Angeles.
Passengers hate US Immigration Nazis during stopover in LAX.
Paris to Noumea (New Caledonia) operated by AF through Middle East.
Both beyond range for non-stop. Volume undeniable (Tahiti tourists).
xxx
Oh, you are correct, no demand for them - But shall I mention...
xxx
Tokyo to Sao Paulo -
Sao Paulo has the largest ethnic Japanese population outside Japan.
Also large Korean population. Flights to Seoul...
Varig used to fly to NRT with 747 and MD-11, with stop in Los Angeles.
Currently operated by JAL and KAL, daily flights, stops in Los Angeles.
Flight time would be 20 hours. Good traffic volume.
xxx
Buenos Aires to Tel Aviv -
BsAs has largest Jewish population (out of Israel) after New York.
No flights currently operated. Requires connection flight in Europe.
Would be a 16 hours long flight because N. Africa countries deny overflight.
xxx
Probably other pairings. I am not a traffic expert.
The idea is to avoid connections/fuel stops required in USA and Europe.
Heard many UK natives in Perth (Aus) need to stop in UAE for LHR.
Lebanese/Syrian ethnic population in Colombia/Venezuela to Beirut.
Avoiding "big hubs" concept for travel. US "point to point" traffic concept.
xxx
Just an idea. Next 20 years...maybe...?
Happy contrails
Forgot to mention -
Paris direct to Tahiti - excellent traffic, presently stops in Los Angeles.
Passengers hate US Immigration Nazis during stopover in LAX.
Paris to Noumea (New Caledonia) operated by AF through Middle East.
Both beyond range for non-stop. Volume undeniable (Tahiti tourists).
Last edited by BelArgUSA; 4th Feb 2009 at 12:35.
BelArg :
Always good to discuss. But those examples you give are of pairings which in the general scale of things are thin traffic, and almost entirely visiting-friends-relations, down at the bottom of the revenue curve. This is nothing more than fill-in traffic which readily diverts to an intermediate stop if they can save £50. Not the sort of revenue to justify a new type.
Conviasa of Venezuela now do a route Caracas-Damascus-Tehran, one of the examples you give. A recent enthusiast's account on the web described a trip on it. 24 (!) passengers, on an A340.
What justifies investment is traffic flows which balance to the fleet's typical mix of F/C/Y seats, which are not highly seasonal, and which have a good amount of business, government, and other premium-class traffic, good opportunities for connecting passengers at both ends of the route, and freight for the belly in both directions as well.
Always good to discuss. But those examples you give are of pairings which in the general scale of things are thin traffic, and almost entirely visiting-friends-relations, down at the bottom of the revenue curve. This is nothing more than fill-in traffic which readily diverts to an intermediate stop if they can save £50. Not the sort of revenue to justify a new type.
Conviasa of Venezuela now do a route Caracas-Damascus-Tehran, one of the examples you give. A recent enthusiast's account on the web described a trip on it. 24 (!) passengers, on an A340.
What justifies investment is traffic flows which balance to the fleet's typical mix of F/C/Y seats, which are not highly seasonal, and which have a good amount of business, government, and other premium-class traffic, good opportunities for connecting passengers at both ends of the route, and freight for the belly in both directions as well.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: AEP
Age: 80
Posts: 1,420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WHBM -
xxx
Again agree with you - note that I say 20 years from now...
Now that I am retired pilot and graduated as "SLF", I can tell you my dislikes and preferences. Fortunate enough to occupy premium cabin, quite often but occasionally I sit in "steerage" too. And what is it with these fellow passengers rushing out of the cabin on arrival...? To be first for baggage retrieval, and wait there 45 minutes...?
xxx
I hate as an example to sit in a twin aisle wide body economy class that is full of passengers. In a 747, in cabin C, D or E... even though the 747 was my plane. The only decent passenger area of the 747 is the upper deck. I do not mind in a 757 that is full on a long flight, if I can sit in a seat next to the aisle. I also hate the concept of hub to hub flying of super high-capacity airplanes. That A380 from LHR to SYD in economy class must be masochism. I wonder if I am subject to agoraphobia.
xxx
As an example, some passengers are forced to fly their journey in 3 sectors. One from home to the hub, change airplane, fly second leg in large capacity airplane, and final leg from hub to destination. Every change of plane is potential for "loss of bagage" or "missed connection because of weather".
xxx
One airplane I miss a lot for short haul, even all economy class is the DC9 and MD80 type planes, with 3+2 seating, rather than the 3+3 seating on the 737 and 320s
xxx
And as an ex-pilot, I do not mind if the plane is 25 years old, or got delivered last year to the airline. My favorite plane might be the old "junk"... I never use the "in-flight entertainement" and for me, give me 2 glasses of wine, and I will sleep llike a baby the entire flight to landing. Do not need a meal.
xxx
I did Buenos Aires to Paris to Brussels and back recently. The only nice sector of my flight (flight?) was... in the TGV train "Thalys", 1:20 minutes from Paris to Brussels. A real delight in the bar enjoying a beer or two...!
xxx
What do you expect with a grumpy old fart...! - Best regards...
Happy cont-rail
xxx
Again agree with you - note that I say 20 years from now...
Now that I am retired pilot and graduated as "SLF", I can tell you my dislikes and preferences. Fortunate enough to occupy premium cabin, quite often but occasionally I sit in "steerage" too. And what is it with these fellow passengers rushing out of the cabin on arrival...? To be first for baggage retrieval, and wait there 45 minutes...?
xxx
I hate as an example to sit in a twin aisle wide body economy class that is full of passengers. In a 747, in cabin C, D or E... even though the 747 was my plane. The only decent passenger area of the 747 is the upper deck. I do not mind in a 757 that is full on a long flight, if I can sit in a seat next to the aisle. I also hate the concept of hub to hub flying of super high-capacity airplanes. That A380 from LHR to SYD in economy class must be masochism. I wonder if I am subject to agoraphobia.
xxx
As an example, some passengers are forced to fly their journey in 3 sectors. One from home to the hub, change airplane, fly second leg in large capacity airplane, and final leg from hub to destination. Every change of plane is potential for "loss of bagage" or "missed connection because of weather".
xxx
One airplane I miss a lot for short haul, even all economy class is the DC9 and MD80 type planes, with 3+2 seating, rather than the 3+3 seating on the 737 and 320s
xxx
And as an ex-pilot, I do not mind if the plane is 25 years old, or got delivered last year to the airline. My favorite plane might be the old "junk"... I never use the "in-flight entertainement" and for me, give me 2 glasses of wine, and I will sleep llike a baby the entire flight to landing. Do not need a meal.
xxx
I did Buenos Aires to Paris to Brussels and back recently. The only nice sector of my flight (flight?) was... in the TGV train "Thalys", 1:20 minutes from Paris to Brussels. A real delight in the bar enjoying a beer or two...!
xxx
What do you expect with a grumpy old fart...! - Best regards...
Happy cont-rail
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Estonia
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A380-800r
A380 has been designed with a view to a stretch. The huge wing reference area. Compare A340-600HGW with A380-800! The wing area of A380 is almost twice that of A340-600. A340-600HGW MTOW is 380 t; at the same wing loading, A380 would have 750 t MTOW.
A380-800 now has 569 t. 590 t wing, landing gear and engine upgrades were prepared for A380-800F.
A380-900 needs modifications to fuselage and airports. A380-800R would have a slightly heavier empty weight and fuel burn than A380-800, but it would still be far cheaper than anything else, and it would have the extra range. Especially with limited payload. It would be the easiest and quickest A380 derivative. Note how much extra range 747-200 has compared to -100, or DC-10-30 compared to DC-10-10.
A380-800 now has 569 t. 590 t wing, landing gear and engine upgrades were prepared for A380-800F.
A380-900 needs modifications to fuselage and airports. A380-800R would have a slightly heavier empty weight and fuel burn than A380-800, but it would still be far cheaper than anything else, and it would have the extra range. Especially with limited payload. It would be the easiest and quickest A380 derivative. Note how much extra range 747-200 has compared to -100, or DC-10-30 compared to DC-10-10.
