747-400`s future
Guest
Posts: n/a
747-400`s future
I was wondering when could the 747-400 disappear forever. Many classic airplanes from the past are still flying like the DC-9 or 747 classics. Will the 747-400 be around in 2020 or 2030? Lots of airlines such as JAL, air new zealand etc are retiring them. I am a huge fan of the 747-400 and would be so sad to see it go for good. From 2011 how long will it live for? What year will it go forever. I know that the freight will live longer than the pax so when will the pax go and the freight go? 
Last edited by 747 forever; 21st Jan 2011 at 07:37.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 and is unlikely to ever be produced in the same numbers as the B747.
As a freighter the B747F has no equal at the moment, the B747-8F will be an improvement on the -400 but you will probably see the B747-400 around for many years yet in various configurations.
The A380 is not a 744 replacement as it only serves a niche market and is unlikely to ever be produced in the same numbers as the B747.
As a freighter the B747F has no equal at the moment, the B747-8F will be an improvement on the -400 but you will probably see the B747-400 around for many years yet in various configurations.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: earth
Posts: 1,341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
just wondering, why do airlines replace large aircrafts with small aircrafts. Personally I think large aircrafts are more profitable because it carries more people.
The 744 for example is a much more profitable aircraft full than the A330, to have full aircraft you must have a strong market. We all know how volitile the aviation industry can be. Now when the market is down, the A330 becomes more profitable as an airline can go off lease or park more aircraft and operate smaller ones at higher capacity, the 74x / A380 operators loose their arse when they can not meet their load factor requirement for profit and have less options.
Going big is a gamble, the 787 will be a very popular aircraft for this reason. The 748 will do well in pax as well as freight. I believe we will see many aircraft hit the boneyard as manufacturers sell aircraft based on their ability to operate with less expense. At the same time this will make these aircraft cheap to aquire giving more compitition from start ups who have low administrative overhead.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Big aircraft are more profitable ONLY if there is a sufficient market.
For example, there might be 400 people wanting to fly ABC to XYZ every weekday, but some want a morning flight, some want an evening flight. Operating a 747 on this route would be a bust, it would be only half full. A 757 or comparable flying twice a day would make good money.
So - simply "liking" a particular plane won't work, if you want to stay in business. Matching the equipment to the market is the key!
For example, there might be 400 people wanting to fly ABC to XYZ every weekday, but some want a morning flight, some want an evening flight. Operating a 747 on this route would be a bust, it would be only half full. A 757 or comparable flying twice a day would make good money.
So - simply "liking" a particular plane won't work, if you want to stay in business. Matching the equipment to the market is the key!
The 744 for example is a much more profitable aircraft full than the A330, to have full aircraft you must have a strong market.
You need both a strong market and a reasonable yield per seat to make money.
Yield and butts on seats is the key to profitability!
B744 with rollers will be rare soon but unfortunately the "hog" will be with us for a long time to come.
Boeing twins rule OK !!!!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Strategic hamlet
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For example, there might be 400 people wanting to fly ABC to XYZ every weekday, but some want a morning flight, some want an evening flight. Operating a 747 on this route would be a bust, it would be only half full. A 757 or comparable flying twice a day would make good money.
Guest
Posts: n/a
but it is much more cheaper operating one big plane than two little planes. Which is better, flying two small planes or one big plane. I think one big because adding up the landing, fee maintenance etc for two small planes would be a bit higher. Just what I think if Im wrong then thats ok
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: France
Posts: 749
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I beleive this is a yes AND a no. In a perfect world (your aircraft capacities matches perfectly the market) yes, in the real world where the market is hard to foresee: no. (barit1 said it already)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the likes of Cathay, SIA and the Japanese can run 777s and 744s on short hops and still make a decent profit
I rode a couple of these flights, and with high-density seating, it was not unusual to have 500 pax on the manifest - PLUS babes in arms.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: earth
Posts: 1,341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I could fill a B744 with $1 tickets and go broke.
You need both a strong market and a reasonable yield per seat to make money.
Yield and butts on seats is the key to profitability!
You need both a strong market and a reasonable yield per seat to make money.
Yield and butts on seats is the key to profitability!
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: ME
Posts: 5,505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bottom line is that with a reasonable market the 744 is more profitable than a twin, assuming cattle car config and both aircraft full.
We operate both B744 and B777 aircraft on domestic flights, the extra seating on the 744 doesn't theoretically pay for the additional fuel.......
Mutt
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but it is much more cheaper operating one big plane than two little planes. Which is better, flying two small planes or one big plane. I think one big because adding up the landing, fee maintenance etc for two small planes would be a bit higher. Just what I think if Im wrong then thats ok
747forever
You seem to be ignoring the effects of competition and the desires of the paying passengers.
For example, if you put your 747 in a market strong enough to support 2 flights a day profitably. So, along comes a competitor willing to commit 2 767s and a 757 to the route against you. With 2 planes, you can only offer a morning and mid-day flight, your competitor puts the 767 against your two flights and offers a late day to catch premium business travelers who want to fly at the end of the business day--you're in trouble.
This is essentially what drove the 747 off the Atlantic market. It became a 767 market, with 777s on the highest volume routes--primarily LON. By using smaller planes, the airlines could offer non-stop flights connecting more smaller cities in Europe and North America. 747s were common sights on the tracks in the '80s, rare now. Tokyo was 747 Central a decade ago, now they are out-populated by 777s. A glance out the concourse at Narita last month, showed more B777s and A330s than B747s. Purely, anecdotal, but not unusual. A 747 at PHNL is rare now, but in 89 very common.
A long way of saying, the travel market is getting more fractionalized toward non-stop flights connecting smaller and smaller markets. They have delivered over 900 B777s while they delivered maybe half that number of B747s and the trend lines are going in opposite directions.
GF
You seem to be ignoring the effects of competition and the desires of the paying passengers.
For example, if you put your 747 in a market strong enough to support 2 flights a day profitably. So, along comes a competitor willing to commit 2 767s and a 757 to the route against you. With 2 planes, you can only offer a morning and mid-day flight, your competitor puts the 767 against your two flights and offers a late day to catch premium business travelers who want to fly at the end of the business day--you're in trouble.
This is essentially what drove the 747 off the Atlantic market. It became a 767 market, with 777s on the highest volume routes--primarily LON. By using smaller planes, the airlines could offer non-stop flights connecting more smaller cities in Europe and North America. 747s were common sights on the tracks in the '80s, rare now. Tokyo was 747 Central a decade ago, now they are out-populated by 777s. A glance out the concourse at Narita last month, showed more B777s and A330s than B747s. Purely, anecdotal, but not unusual. A 747 at PHNL is rare now, but in 89 very common.
A long way of saying, the travel market is getting more fractionalized toward non-stop flights connecting smaller and smaller markets. They have delivered over 900 B777s while they delivered maybe half that number of B747s and the trend lines are going in opposite directions.
GF
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: earth
Posts: 1,341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you sure about that?
We operate both B744 and B777 aircraft on domestic flights, the extra seating on the 744 doesn't theoretically pay for the additional fuel.......
We operate both B744 and B777 aircraft on domestic flights, the extra seating on the 744 doesn't theoretically pay for the additional fuel.......
Granted I proposed a theoretical situation myself, the larger the aircraft the larger the savings. Another thing is routes and slots, now we are talking about exploiting a market to it's fullest with an A380.
I was around on the other hand to watch every 747 acmi freight operator out there get hit hard when trade started to slow down circa 2000/2001. Watched ATLAS allmost go under as their customers started looking for DC-10 and MD-11 operators because they could come closer to filling a smaller jet. ATLAS had somewhere around 30 aircraft at the time.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: In the twilight zone
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, does it make sense to pay $130m or more for a B-777 to replace a
B-747 tha's paid for so you can save 20 or 30 per cent on the fuel bill?
I don't think so.
B-747 tha's paid for so you can save 20 or 30 per cent on the fuel bill?
I don't think so.