*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?

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.