Well, they won't keep making it if nobody is buying it... ;)

But it does seem like there will be some buyers for a while longer...maybe more freight than passenger...

The freight comment has shown up in a few posts on this topic. I met a pilot for Nippon Freight recently who was telling me that they don't like the 747 for freight. He says that it can carry so much weight that their fuel utilization is not very good. In his case, he was flying Japan to Anchorage and then having an overnight stop to refuel before going on. He said on some of the smaller, more fuel efficient aircraft that they can go all the way to Atlanta or Chicago, etc. on a single tank of fuel which means they get to be home more.

But agree the 747 certainly seems to have an ongoing role here.

:confused:

The 737 entered service before the 747, yet no one is predicting the "end of the 737."

Obviously no one would order a 737-200 these days. The current offerings are substantially different (other than the basic concept).

Whether the current version of the 747 is different enough and relevant enough for today's air travel needs will certainly be decided by the market. But to simply say it's 45 years old, as though that's an adequate explanation, is kind of short-sighted. Heck, the Corvette is 60 years old but no one is predicting its demise, either.

No to mention Lufthansa's. There's an airline that actually thinks the 747-8 is something customers will appreciate.

Yeah loved looking at it from the tarmac, and also loved the so powerful 4-engine take off. It felt so awesome. And at that time, the assurance of having 4 engines was a nice touch too!

I got a chuckle this AM. After reading this thread yesterday, and pulling to Boeing Everett this AM and seeing a fresh 747 in the fuel stall waiting for the paint hangar.

I know they're still in demand for their ability to land on gravel runways, and used by northern airlines for that purpose. Not sure what other jets of that size are able to do that.

Many of the Russian airliners were built for marginal runways.

Re: an Air Force One replacement:

The government has issued RFIs to Boeing and Airbus, but Airbus has said it's not interested in responding. Obviously they think there's no chance a European company can win a contest to transport a US president. You won't see Audi building presidential limousines either. :)

The current SAM 742s in presidential service will be 30 years old in a few years, they started duty in 1988 or '89 (I don't think Reagan ever had the 742s), which will be somewhat longer than the 707s were around. I suspect that when they announce the 748 line closure, the Air Force will negotiate to take up the last few slots for presidential transport and E-4 (NEAP / "doomsday aircraft") replacements. That will keep the 747 planform in the public eye through 2050 or so, long after most airlines have retired theirs.

Yes, although I never really understood why LH ordered the 747 as well as the A380s which form the backbone of its larger intercontinental fleet.

I read the USA Today article and it was clearly written by a correspondent who has never strayed far from Peoria. There is a world outside the USA, and large aircraft have a role to play in that world. More and more airports are slot controlled or slot limited. That changes the economics of aircraft utilisation. Likewise, there are favored flight times when crossing multiple time zones and it's not always convenient flying several flights at essentially the same time.

Yes the 747/380 makes no sense flying from SFO-LAX, but it makes a lot of sense flying between DXB and LHR for example.

Anyhow, ultra-large aircraft will be flying on major routes regularly for the next 30 or 40 years at least, even if neither Boeing nor Airbus sells one again.

Don't aircraft like 777 and 787 make the 747 obsolete? I can remember taking the DC9 ATL - TPA, but others made it obsolete

Smaller long-range aircraft make it possible to operate so-called "long, thin" routes, e.g. nonstop service between two second-tier cities. AUS-LHR, for example, which BA is opening with a 787 next year; you'd never see that route served with a 747. As route maps shift to emphasize long, thin routes the case for the 747 diminishes, as fewer long-haul flyers have to shuttle to a major hub to catch one. (Pan Am's whole network was built to get most passengers to JFK to catch transatlantic 747s; in the 1960s and 1970s the idea of transatlantic nonstops departing from PIT, CVG, CLT, was unthinkable, mostly because such markets were too small to fill up a 747, DC-10, or L-1011. It wasn't until the 1980s that 767s, and soon other twinjets, were allowed on intercontinental long-hauls.)

There will always be a business case for VLAs to serve the world's top 20 air hubs, particularly as slots there grow more precious. It's just a narrower case than before, and the population of VLAs (747s and A380s) will continue to decline.

In support of your statement about "the population of VLAs (747s and A380s) will continue to decline".

The 777-9X has the same passenger load and range as the 747 and carries more freight (I believe the 777-300ER carries more freight than a 744).

http://www.aspireaviation.com/2013/1...-777x-success/

You'll have to scroll down towards the end of the web page (it is long). There is a comparison table between the A350, 777X and 787 models.

Going forward, the only routes that will require a 748 or 388 will be routes that suffer from ETOPS restrictions. And as ETOPS restrictions get looser and looser, those routes will eventually disappear.

The 847-400/500/600/700/900

will be a triple decker up to 900 passenger 6 engine behemoth that will fly around the world, JFK-BOM-SYD-LAX-GRU-LHR-PEK-JFK flight. So yes the 747 will be around for at least 15 more years.

Quite a bit of uninformed rubbish being offered as the truth here, which I shall attempt to rectify.

The suggestions that the future of the 747 has any relevance or connection to US domestic traffic or US based carriers, points to a total lack of knowledge of the world aviation scene. US carriers haven't ordered a 747 sized aircraft in decades, and only AA have even bothered to get the next biggest thing (77W). Nobody predicts any passenger VLA market with US carriers, least of all the people who produce the things. It may be worth having a look at the Boeing and Airbus projections; North America will soon seize to be the biggest aviation market - China will take that place. It is also not in the US the two big manufacturers are seeing the growth, far from it. It's in the Middle East, Asia-Pacific, Europe and then the US.

Some people have also been taking for granted the marketing gossip emanating from an aircraft manufacturer, namely that a B747-8i will burn less fuel per seat than an A380. But that is only true if you use the Boeing standard seating for the 747 and the Airbus standard seating for the A380. Since those two standards are not the same, it's comparing apples to oranges. The truth is, as should be expected given the generational gaps between the products, is that an A380 will burn less fuel per seat than a 747-8i with an equivalent seating standard.

As for the future of the 747, the order book speaks its own clear language. There are less than 60 unfulfilled orders, 45 or so are freighters. Boeing are currently building white tailed freighters and flying them directly to the desert, and has reduced output twice recently and are now down to 1,75 aircraft per month. There are no signs of any major new order, their best hope is probably that Air China or Korean Air might order 10 more in total between them. Then the curtain will fall over the production of passenger airline 747s, but they will continue to grace the skies for many decades to come.

Finally, the A380 is not in competition with the 747-8 over a possible Air Force One order. Mainly because no such tender has been issued, secondly because Airbus have already made it clear they have no intention of entering such a competition, for all of the obvious reasons. Though I suppose it would be fun checking in on Fox News if Obama ordered a 'French' jet.

True, but the existing stock will probably do for many years to come. But it's not the fuel-guzzling inefficiency of the 737-200 that makes it well-suited to gravel runways, right?

I would guess that the smaller diameter low-bypass engines on the -200 are what make it suitable for less improved runways. Newer 737s have high-bypass engines with their larger diameters that put the bottom lip of the engine closer to the ground. It also appears that the availability of a gravelkit for the -200 is what makes it preferred for those uses.

UA took its last 744 in late 2000, NW in late 2002, so a decade and a smidgen?

My reference was to the order date, not delivery. Decade and and a somewhat larger smidgen then. Still doesn't distract from the fact no US based carriers are in the market for a VLA the size of a 747-8 or A380, and therefore the US market has zero relevance to the production of these types.

Another freshly painted 747 Freighter rolled out of the paint hangar at Everett yesterday. Good thing noone's buying them. This is for Cathay Pacific.

...And some airline will jam it to the gills with 31" x 17" Y seats... :D

*shrug* Just reading back through the thread, I don't think anybody's trying to make a big case for VLA's in the U.S. We all realize their primary role is elsewhere.

Do you deny that Boeing is reducing production rates for 747s?

The fact that they are being produced doesn't mean that the life of it isn't winding down.

+1

And it isn't just the 747. I suspect the A380 is on the same path as well.

The B747 and A380 will both be dinosaurs in 10 years (or less). It will be like the B77L and A345. Nice planes designed to fit a narrow market segment that have been sidelined because they are too expensive to operate.

Can Boeing and Airbus respectively make it less expensive to operate the traditional 747 and A380? If they can get it down to about what the newer models cost to operate, then we'll see these two models around for a lot longer. Simply, Airlines are looking to reduce fuel consumption which is their largest cost, IIRC about half of operating costs on the Income Statement.

Plus there is the aspect that airlines are going green in the consumers' eyes.. probably means that mileage runs will cost more in the future.

I never said the rates weren't changing. Just commenting on the seemingly doom and gloom of some posts in this thread.

Its not doom and gloom. Change is a constant in the market. From my perspective, it is just that some aircraft have a shorter operational life than others due to economics. I think the 747-800 and the 380 are in that group.

I am not driving the same kind of car that I did 10 - 15 years ago and I don't think twice about it.

Not every aircraft will be a 737, 319/320/321, 777, original 747, 330, etc with a lengthy production run.

I actually like flying on the 747 and am looking forward to an F award seat in the nose of a LH 747-800 soon. I have never flown an A380 but I am sure it is a great plane as well.

If I do a similar F flight on a 777X or A350 in 5 or 6 years, I expect it will be equally as nice.

Correct :)

Why the way its 747-8 not 747-800 :)

Um... what? :confused:

Good point. Change is indeed constant for the commercial aviation market just like any other business.

But your analogy with your car is not quite right. The average car model has a production run of 5-7 years max, but a jetliner model can go on for decades. And the cost of a jetliner to an airline is quite different to what a car is for your average driver. So the airlines do think twice about which jetliner to keep.

I wasn't saying auto production is analogous to aircraft production. But that in both areas there is constant change, often dictated by economics.

Just commenting on VWTim's doom an gloom comment. My point is that we all deal with change dictated by economics and that we all move on (and in most cases do not look back). Doom and gloom has nothing to do with it. As much as I like flying on VLA's (and I do), things change.

It used to be that plane fares cost less the more legs required to get to the destination. Currently, fares for additional legs cost more when introducing more legs. My comment is that airlines are going green and charging more for more miles flown to the same destination when adding more legs. I believe this trend will continue, and moreso in the future.

Some good information in your post, but also some of the rubbish that you were trying to clear up.

The 747-8 has a brand new, super-critical wing, and newer engines, than the 380. LH, which is so far, the only carrier to operate both the 380 and 747-8I, sees real world usage difference of about .1 or .2 liters per 100km. Boeing is looking to drop that another 1.8% or more with the soon to be certified PIP.

Fuel efficiency is definitely part of what makes a frame attractive, and these days, it has become a much larger percentage of that evaluation, however it is only part of what determines if the airframe is successful for a given mission. People seem to overlook that fairly often.

Again, some very bad information. Boeing has not built a single white-tailed 747-8, and have not flown any new builds "directly to the desert". It is true that earlier this year, customers deferred the delivery schedule of some of their frames, so 3 8Fs were flown out and stored for a bit, however all of those have since been flown back and delivered (or are scheduled for delivery). Production has been scaled back twice, but it currently stands at 1.5/month, and Boeing themselves has said that they expect to maintain that level through 2015, but that they evaluate it from month to month.

There are 2 747-8s that do not currently have customers, but both of those were built for a customer that did not take them up for one reason or another. One of those was one of the early build 8Fs that Atlas refused. It has undergone refurbishment and looks to be in preparation to be part of an order. The other one is an 8I that was LH's, but Boeing requested that they be able to use it to certify all of the elements that are part of this upcoming PIP.

At the time, LH decided to go ahead and cancel that frame, leaving them with 19, but just recently it appears that the frame has once again been re-assigned to LH as a customer, so it is a possibility that they will still take the frame, or may even place a top up order of some number.

Regarding the backlog, as of September, it was 23 8Is and 28 8Fs. Since then, 3 freighters have been delivered, but 5 8Is have been ordered, so the backlog currently stands at 28 8I and 25 8F.

There are existing MoUs from CA of 2 8Is, UN for 4 8Is, and an unidentified customer for 4 8Is.

Regarding 8Fs, there have been orders for 5 this year already, and there appears to be another CX order coming for at least 4 frames. The question many are asking now is if the long rumored 8I order for them will come to fruition as well.

^^^^^^^Uh huh. So instead of making a truly new fuel efficient aircraft. We'll just milk the old one cause it's easier. That's what the american auto industry does!^^^^^^

Yeah, it is. And so are people that use a Ford Fairlane to get to work... you've got something wrong with your brain if you think that's a suitable vehicle to commute in. Buff it with a fine cloth and drag it out for a show. Preserving the past doesn't mean living in it.

No offence, but I don't think you fully understand the difference between the auto and aviation industry.

Like i said, it is wrong to make 1 for 1 comparison between the auto industry and the aviation industry. The economies of scale factor works much stronger in the aviation sector. This is the reason why they have such long production. Drive down fixed cost and unit cost. In addition, the amount of investment and long lead times required to build a plane from scratch means it is in the interest of the manufacturer to extend the life of the aircraft model as much as possible. If the 747 was a dinosaur, it would not have lasted for so long until now. It is not, and I repeat, it is NOT a Ford Fairlane. If the fuel cost were lower than what it is now, it is quite likely the 747 will find more buyers.

These factors also work in the auto industry, but not to the extent as the aviation industry. There is also the factor regarding fashion and taste that is not really a relevant factor for planes. Car models may go "out of style" due to changing trends in consumer tastes. In comparsion, "taste" has little to do with airline preferences, but efficiency is the top factor to consider.

True, but not always the case. Design elements that were used in the past may be used again in the future. The Northrop YB-49 was a prototype bomber with a unique flying wing design. It never entered production, but the same flying wing design turned up decades later when Northrop re-used the idea for their B-2 bomber.

Likewise, the blade-shaped tail cone of the Boeing 777 was derived in part from the same type of "beaver" tail cone from the older MD-80. So for the aviation industry, some manufacturers do look back from time to time.

I assume the 747 has more than covered its development costs, and is a profit center for Boeing. But I also assume the A380 isn't even close to covering costs, and would have to sell lots more to go from red to black. So if the orders slow or stop, what effect will that have on Airbus?

You are right about the 747 and probably right about the A380 too, although Airbus likely won't admit this at this time...

What are factors that go into the fuel efficiency of an aircraft? Engines, weight of fuselage, drag of fuselage, engines, weight of wings, drag of wings, engines... Engines have in particular continued to advance in thrust-per-fuel and reliability. A 747 fuselage with a new wing design and new engines (747-8) is a very different aircraft from a 747-100.

It should be noted that both the 737 and A320 lines are also continually being improved with modest airframe modifications and new engines.

And by the way, the American auto industry has gotten competitive on fuel economy, too. There certainly was a time when this was not the case, but no longer.

and aftermarket providers adapt features from one manufacturer's design to another's as well ... on the A310 and A320, Airbus introduced winglets that extended both above and below the wing surface; Aviation Partners Boeing developed "blended winglets" for the 737 family and later offered them for the 757/767

Airbus now offers "sharklets" for the 320 series, and Aviation Partners Boeing recently introduced "split scimitar winglets" for the 737

During the early 2000s, I saw some document prepared by Air France comparing the operating costs of the 777 against the 747-400 on a per seat basis. The difference was HUGE in favour of the 777.

My guess is that the GE90 class of engines, despite being older than GE-nx still outperform economically because you only need 2 engines. If they were to grow the GE-90s to allow a 747 to be twin engined, this could change the economics quite a bit.

With regards to market for VLA:

While a number of US carriers have long ago shunned the 747, one needs to consider that none of those carriers exist in their original form. Delta has merged with Northwest which has trans-pac routes where 747 are still viable. United has merged with Continental, and UA has routes where a 747 is valid. AA and US may not have an affinity for the 747 but...

With merged airlines becoming behemoths, one needs to consider if main routes between large cities might benefit from a VLA when you combine traffic from two merged airlines. This is especially true for cities where concessions in landing slots had to be made to allow the merger.

During the 787 propaganda era, Boeing was all about point to point, smaller planes for long thin routes. But the actual trend says otherwise: planes are growing, not shrinking.

The 787-8 is bigger than the 767 it replaces. Yet, most orders went for the 787-9 which is even bigger. Airlines look at the per seat cost, and math is quite harsh for this: stretch an aircraft and per seat cost goes down. In fact. Airbus scored a lot of 350 sales because its first variant was bigger than Boeing first 787 variant.

And meanwhile, the A330 has basically cannabalised remaining 767 sales, again, as a bigger aircraft.

Bombardier long ago stopped the 50 seat CRJ. Stretched CRJs still produced and Bombardier now after the 100-130 seat market.

Same with 777. Airlines no longer going for the -200, they want the bigger ones. And Boeing is stretching the 777 again.


The old argument was that people valued price of flight over comfort and food. Airlines did away with all nice stuff on flights. Heck, we even have to pay for luggage now.

Then, airlines stopped (or reduced) aircraft waste by reducing parked time at a terminal (which not only increases aircraft usage, but also reduces gate costs because you need fewer gates). May not look as good in CRS when the connection time is longer, but airlines save a bundle. So airlines did away with nicer looking schedules on paper to save a huge amount of money.

What is next ? The next step is to grow aircraft and remove unnecessary flght duplications and reduce frequencies to a reasonable level. And that means larger aircraft.

The 777X is already beyond size limits and needs folding wings.

So, in the future, perhaps the need for VLA will become more apparent. Whether Boeing recycles the 747 with a new 747-9, or whether it starts from scratch, I don't know. But I think the 747-8 is the last of teh 4 engined 747 and if the 747 is to survive beyond the -8, it will be as a twin engined aircraft.

And I am pretty sure Airbus would also love to be able to make a twin engine A380.