Boeing to make a full size 747 ?
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Without sales of the A380 to Emirates the program would have been another Concorde, the A380 is ideal for nearly full European airports and LHR in particular, Boeing would stupid to follow this market. Any 747 replacement is more than covered by the 777X, its about making money not making aeroplanes, i cannot see anyone ever making another quad jet, the biggest mistake BAe made was not re-engining the 146 as a twin.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: earth
Posts: 1,341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing wanted to do it back in the 80's, the negative feedback from the FAA concerning the potential loss of life of 600 pax shut them down. Really successful aircraft, i think they are happy with it and it has outlived it's usefulness as a pax bird (great freighter). A.B. can have the flying pig, it will outlive it's usefulness as the twin is the future (pax per mile/kilometer cost).
A.B. can have the flying pig, it will outlive it's usefulness as the twin is the future (pax per mile/kilometer cost).
That the majority of future jet airliner deliveries will be twins is a no-brainer. But it's equally obvious that for markets where you need to move very large numbers of people at the same time, the only game in town is the A380 (well OK, plus the faltering 747-8) and we're not about to see a 600-seat twin competitor in the foreseeable future.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: earth
Posts: 1,341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But it's equally obvious that for markets where you need to move very large numbers of people at the same time, the only game in town is the A380 (well OK, plus the faltering 747-8) and we're not about to see a 600-seat twin competitor in the foreseeable future.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: A parallel universe.
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's Tim Clark's (CEO of Emirates airline) opinion about the 747-8 with some very interesting quotes:
Clark: 777-300ER responsible for sparse 747-8I sales - 2/10/2011 - Flight Global
and
Clark: 777-300ER responsible for sparse 747-8I sales - 2/10/2011 - Flight Global
"What Boeing is up against is not the A380, it is their own machine - the 777-30ER," Clark says.
Clark points out that Emirates carries 420 passengers on its 777-300ERs in a two-class configuration. He believes the 747-8I will only be able to carry slightly more passengers.
"Now look at the economics. We can get the ER to operate 17.5h with that kind of payload. It's cheap to operate. The engines are hugely fuel efficient," he says. "You've an amazing capability."
"Now look at the economics. We can get the ER to operate 17.5h with that kind of payload. It's cheap to operate. The engines are hugely fuel efficient," he says. "You've an amazing capability."
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne
Posts: 949
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbus beat them to it and as the 748 shows there really isnt a market for the two of them ! The 747 is fast approaching its sell by date im suprised they even went ahead or continue to produce the -800
Paxing All Over The World
Both companies knew that there was only enough market for one double decker. Since the airline market had experienced clashes of sizing before (if I recall correctly, the MD-10 and TriStar overlapped too much and so neither became a big money maker).
So both companies put forward ideas and dropped big hints and waited to see what the carriers said and who would put some cards down. Unsurprisingly, it was Airbus and Boeing then continued with their well publicised alternative view of long routes but thinner.
A great success all round.
So both companies put forward ideas and dropped big hints and waited to see what the carriers said and who would put some cards down. Unsurprisingly, it was Airbus and Boeing then continued with their well publicised alternative view of long routes but thinner.
A great success all round.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: earth
Posts: 1,341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Both companies knew that there was only enough market for one double decker. Since the airline market had experienced clashes of sizing before (if I recall correctly, the MD-10 and TriStar overlapped too much and so neither became a big money maker).
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,095
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A great success all round? really? for Boeing, perhaps.
Before the first metal was cut for the A380 Boeing did evaluations for the VLA and came to the conclusion that it could be a risky project for a limited market but, nevertheless, offered airbus the chance to join forces and produce a VLA as a consortium.
Airbus refused their offer and Boeing immediately cancelled all plans for a VLA.
Airbus still have a long way to go with the A380 just to break even and it hasn't proved popular with the American market or the traditionally Boeing market, like Japan, two markets essential to the success of most airliners.
The 787 and the many variants of the 777 are the way ahead for Boeing's long haul market.
Airbus refused their offer and Boeing immediately cancelled all plans for a VLA.
Airbus still have a long way to go with the A380 just to break even and it hasn't proved popular with the American market or the traditionally Boeing market, like Japan, two markets essential to the success of most airliners.
The 787 and the many variants of the 777 are the way ahead for Boeing's long haul market.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA
Age: 78
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Americans always need to be concerned about liability. Take for instance accidents that have triggered the demise of what were once premier US carriers. Lockerbie with the loss of a 747 load of passengers was a major piece to the end of PanAm. Flight 800 with the loss of another planeload was a large nail in the coffin of TWA. Even if you aren't responsible for the accident accidents with heavy loss of life strikes fear into passengers plus lawyers are vultures heading for the deepest pockets. Is that a consideration as to why US carriers have shunned the 380? Then there is the flexibility of multiple flights with different timings - one daily flight might not fit the schedules that 3 smaller flights with large twins, so due to convenience you end up with say 3 350 passenger loads instead of 1 550 passenger load just because you meet the customer demand. Would Airbus have been better served to have developed a competitor to the 777 instead of making the huge investment in the 380 and now still being a year away from airline passengers in a twin that has over 800 pre-orders? I remember the old days when I thought of a twin as always having one engine to get you to the scene of the crash but my last flight on anything with more than 2 was one of Northwest's last DC-10 flights. I also remember dreading arrival at an airport just behind 2 747's and getting stuck for what seemed like ages getting through immigration.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the edge of madness
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The A380, like the 747 before it, is a 50 year programme and, as the 747-8i fades, will eventually be re-engined and stretched (in that order). The 777-9X will be tough to beat but, with new engines and denser configurations the A380 will continue to gain sales where slot restrictions exist. It may never sell in the same numbers as the big twins but it will be Airbus' trump card for years to come and may even, eventually, make them some money!
Paxing All Over The World
I do know that Boeing looked at all the numbers for a long time and found they did not add up. No surprise. The offer to build with Airbus was always going to be turned down - how would Boeing have reacted if MD or Lockheed had suggested such a deal in the 1960s/70s? Of course it was a different era but Boeing have been taken down a peg or two since then.
There was always a small market for a VLA and Airbus were, in my view, always going to build it and, eventually, it will make some money.
That is why I said 'a great success all round'.
There was always a small market for a VLA and Airbus were, in my view, always going to build it and, eventually, it will make some money.
That is why I said 'a great success all round'.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wales
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I don't really understand is why the 747-8F a completely different fuselage shape to the 747-8 passenger aircraft.
Cargo...
Passenger...
Also why have Airbus not yet created the freight version of the 380, is it that freight flights are not so profitable anyway... I remember the recent demise of Emerald Airways who use to carry postal services around UK and Europe.
Cargo...
Passenger...
Also why have Airbus not yet created the freight version of the 380, is it that freight flights are not so profitable anyway... I remember the recent demise of Emerald Airways who use to carry postal services around UK and Europe.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wales
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Galaxy Flyer.. Thanks for that explanation, agreed... no need to have unused space in a freighter.
However I think there is possibly another reason why Boeing have not put any more top deck behind the wing, and that is most likely for Weight and Balance reasons. Most aero-modellers know it is acceptable to put lead weight in the nose of a plane or glider, but not to put any in the rear.
If they did add more to the top deck, then the wing position might need altering for W+B checks, also the undercarriage would need re-doing, and all in all it would be a costly re-design, not just a bit more cosmetic sheet-metal bashing.
However I think there is possibly another reason why Boeing have not put any more top deck behind the wing, and that is most likely for Weight and Balance reasons. Most aero-modellers know it is acceptable to put lead weight in the nose of a plane or glider, but not to put any in the rear.
If they did add more to the top deck, then the wing position might need altering for W+B checks, also the undercarriage would need re-doing, and all in all it would be a costly re-design, not just a bit more cosmetic sheet-metal bashing.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Manchester, England
Age: 58
Posts: 897
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nope, I think GF had it correct. As he says apart from a bit of room for crew rest and a small number of seats for such as a loadmaster/company pax it would be pointless to put any bigger area up there. It is far too high up to put additional cargo without airports investing in new very high lift equipment, which for the sake of a couple of pallets at best would never happen.
The same difference in upper deck lengths was already used on -400 and -400F models.
The same difference in upper deck lengths was already used on -400 and -400F models.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: earth
Posts: 1,341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However I think there is possibly another reason why Boeing have not put any more top deck behind the wing, and that is most likely for Weight and Balance reasons. Most aero-modellers know it is acceptable to put lead weight in the nose of a plane or glider, but not to put any in the rear.
