747-400`s future

[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.

[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

[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.

[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]

OT: Nostalgic

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.

[main_dog]

Pedant's corner

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.

[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) 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]

guppy

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