Is the 747-8X finally killed ?
 

reading the latest article on Flightglobal one could interpret the scenario as quite grimm for the project.


Boeing hints at possible reassement of 747-8 programme

Finally
 

It's been a slow death but at last we're there: the 747-8i pax version is dead. Little demand or interest. Junk.

"JUNK" ? ? Unlike the electronically actuated elephant from Toulouse, at least that will probably manage to set a record for the number of heads impacted on overhead lockers the day it emulates its little sister. :ugh:
Remind me again how late and over budget it was, quoting the Dreamliner doesn't make it a prouder performance BTW.

Do I detect a bout of 'not invented here' itus?

747-8 was going to burn more fuel for less pax. Only advantage was commonality with an aging predecessor that has no place in the modern world. I love the -400 but it 'aint a subtle aircraft. It was a ground breaker, time to move on.

LD

As a European citizen, I don't think so :=

Just not a great fan of FBW technology, justified or not, but that is another discussion.
The early 340's seem to have sold well, but had marginal at best performance, at least the big ugly sister doesn't seem to be underpowered.

If this is the way it ends for the 747 line, what a sad route. Forced out rather than retire gracefully. It would seem Boeing just tried to push things too far. Reminds one of the way US TV channels usually try to extend popular shows too long and they end up finishing as a shadow of their glory days. It will make the Air Force One competition interesting, with the 787 the obvious, but untried, choice.

No 747-X; it would be a pity, but maybe Boeing could consider competing with the A380 in a different way (I'm thinking of speed rather than number of pax and in particular their shelved plans for a "sonic cruiser").

Imperator 1300

The 787 will compete with the 380 in a different way, point to point instead of hub and spoke. Both these new a/c will work well for airlines running in parallel, I believe both are the future of air travel and most major airlines will end up with both. Boeing just need to pull their fingers out and figure out how to stick the two halves together!!!!

Not set foot in an A380 then I take it ?

I agree the 747 is past it. I am certain you will find that Lufthansa has a clause in their contract that they will not take the 747-8I unless other 'substantial' carriers order it - so yes it looks like the pax version is dead. Will Boeing invest billions to make a slightly better freighter than the -400F ? Those who have not yet flown in the A380 can't appreciate the step change from the old 747 - It may be ugly from the outside (but beauty is in the eye of the beholder), but it's certainly not ugly on the inside.

Post 31 on Page 2 of last October- my remarks still stand! The only thing that is not correct is I implied that the world will come out of this recession fairly soon........I misread the financial situation!
http://www.pprune.org/spectators-bal...r-lufti-2.html

Lovely though it is, the 747-x00 is almost dead. Time to let it go.

I suppose whether an aircraft is 'dead' or not depends on one's point of view. Right now there are still over one thousand B747-400* flying and Boeing have recouped their investment.

Now, the A380 on the other hand, number required to break even in the order of five hundred, number of firm orders so far? So which is the 'dead' aircraft then?

*See next two posts for correction.

No. No really there aren't. In your head maybe, but since the first was line number 696 and they are just passing 1400, there are around 650 ish B747-400s built....

Maybe I am thinking ALL 747s then, but I have flown the 1000th off the line at Seattle, had it painted on the side! The B747 doesn't owe Boeing any money though and my point re A380 and dead aircraft still stands.

With the A380, we are back at the stage of the B747 in 1971. In first year of service, driving Boeing out of business, desperately too big for the time, financial crisis approaching, stalled sales and generally regarded with derision- breaking down all over the world, not the right aeroplane for the time.

All sounds very familiar! What will be the big mass market mover in 10-20 years? The 747 will be getting increasingly rare (an aeroplane design nearly 60 years old! That's like a Strat now), the A380 will be the loved aeroplane of choice for mass market travel on high density routes. All it needs is time. Something has to deliver the mass Chinese tourists around the world, the burgeoning Indian middle class on its travels. Even the Europe-Australia market will find it is the only aeroplane as the world comes out of this slump. It will outsell the 747 as the 747 outsold the 707/DC8. The 777 will be regarded as the disappointing 'old' thing, the A350/787 will not deliver the density required.

I've said all along that the A380 is ideal for the niche market that it serves, I don't ever see that niche market being big enough to enable the A380 to break even. Technically superb, perhaps, but a commercial disaster. Just my 2cents worth.:)

That 'niche' market has hitherto been covered mainly by the B747. The A380 will have that niche to itself. Large capacity longhaul, with no competitors? How can it miss? Just wait till the stretch A380 comes in about 8 years. It's coming, just look at the wing and the shape. Mass market travel- nothing else will be anywhere near.

The 747-8 was just another Boeing smokescreen like the late, unlamented 'Sonic Cruiser' bizarre idea. A dead duck before it started. The machine is an archaic design now. I cannot understand any airline that even looked closely at it when the A380 is up and flying now.

The 747 as the passenger version is going out of production and the A380 is at the same stage as the B747-100. The larger A380 will have the mass market to itself.

Rainboe/Skipness I personally think that you have totally missed it. Airbus, (and yourselves), may have thought that the A380 was the B744 replacement but they/you could not be more wrong. The B744 replacement was the B777 family as well as some of the lesser Airbus types.

Certainly some of the major carriers wanted something like the A380 to satisfy certain routes but nothing like the order of magnitude that Airbus, (or you) imagined.

Don't kid yourself, there will be no significant orders for the A380 in the next five years.

People were saying exactly this in the early/mid 70s about the 747! They were saying the Tristar/DC10 had it right. Indeed, the DC10 for a long time looked a more sensible aeroplane. They even brought out a shorter stubby 747, which was a total failure. But match the right engine with the full airframe, and nothing will beat the A380 for sheer long haul roominess and passenger appeal. The 777 is old hat. The A380 will have the market totally to itself. The next 5 years will be difficult- the 747 had the 73 oil crisis and following recession to cope with as well. The whole thing is being repeated 36 years later!

I still can't believe an aeroplane that first flew 40 years ago is still regarded as a contender! The A380 cannot fail! Those \BIG airlines that retire 747s will replace them with......A380s! It will outsell the 747. Flying crammed in on a 777, people will feel let down they weren't really on the new Queen of the Skies! Just wait.

Rainboe,

I very rarely agree with what you say but on this occasion i fully support your point of view.

A pity that the A380 really can't fit well into a lot of airports:}

It will soon be a pity a lot of airports still can't take an A380!

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?

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!:)

Considering that the interior for our 747-8 will cost more than the airframe and most is already ordered, i wonder how much of a refund Boeing will offer!!

Mutt

It will still be cheaper to fly a single A380 than two big twins. Chaps, we are looking at limititations of the human brain considering the rate of expansion. Forget recessions, this one will be passed in a few years. We had exactly this in 1971. The 747 was absurdly big- at a stroke over doubling 707/DC8 capacity, as the world started getting poorer. The 747 program nearly brought down Boeing, sales were stalling. But gradually, the bigger airlines needed to buy it. We will see this effect happening again. to be considered one of the 'big' airlines, you will have to have A380s for your street cred. In the next 30 years, we will see a burgeoning middle class of Indians and Chinese travelling the world. The next future expansion will be mind boggling, just as the 747 itself created an expansion in the market in the 70s. Nothing will match the economics of an A380 LHR-SYD, LHR-LAX, BOM-JFK, China-LAX/SFO. You can pretend that International point to point in a twin will somehow do it- it won't. The major routes will still take the lion's share. Point to point is more for the domestic US market, not internatinal routes unless US involved. Point to point out of MAN has failed. Try point to point for your BNE-Europe. It doesn't work so well! There is no competitor for the A380 for what it will be able to do, and the economics it can produce. It's market will be large, and people will want the experience. SIA and Emirates alone will carry the program. It can't miss!

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!

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.

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.

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

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.
:ok:
Happy contrails

Sam, do you seriously think any company an develop a newer VLA in the next 20 years? The A380 has swept the market!

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!

So I have imagined those hundreds of Airbuses flying for US airlines, then?

BelArg :

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.

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.

What does this say about americans?

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).

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.

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...
:ok:
Happy cont-rail

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.