Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
mhkansan wrote:Unfortunately the days of production quad jets are numbered as twins can do everything they can do but better!
mhkansan wrote:Unfortunately the days of production quad jets are numbered as twins can do everything they can do but better!
na wrote:There is a fair chance that 50% or more of the 744Fs to be replaced over the next 15 years will be substituted by 748Fs. I think its not to optimistic that there is a potential for a minimum of 50 new orders, and, if the market recovers, even more. Together with the UPS order, that should be good for the production line to exist until 2025 or beyond.
ZeeZoo wrote:na wrote:There is a fair chance that 50% or more of the 744Fs to be replaced over the next 15 years will be substituted by 748Fs. I think its not to optimistic that there is a potential for a minimum of 50 new orders, and, if the market recovers, even more. Together with the UPS order, that should be good for the production line to exist until 2025 or beyond.
There's near 200 747-400Fs in service. 50% of that would see 100+ orders of 747-8Fs, you see that much scope for further production?
na wrote:mhkansan wrote:Unfortunately the days of production quad jets are numbered as twins can do everything they can do but better!
No, Twins cant do it better. They can do it a bit cheaper. Thats a difference.
DFW789ER wrote:A decision on the two aircraft to replace AF1 needs to be made soon. Boeing won't keep the line open waiting on the current administration to decide what they want to do.
LAX772LR wrote:na wrote:mhkansan wrote:Unfortunately the days of production quad jets are numbered as twins can do everything they can do but better!
No, Twins cant do it better. They can do it a bit cheaper. Thats a difference.
Actually, they can usually do it both better AND cheaper... which is the reason behind them taking over nearly every market aspect out there, from quads.DFW789ER wrote:A decision on the two aircraft to replace AF1 needs to be made soon. Boeing won't keep the line open waiting on the current administration to decide what they want to do.
They don't need to. They do have the option of building, white-tailing, and then storing them until needed; if the line needs to be shut down before their acquisition.
Iemand91 wrote:I can't think of any way the 747-8i is better at certain aspects (though; honestly; their must be things the 747-8i is preferable so please; enlighten me )
Iemand91 wrote:I can't think of any airline ordering the 747-8i. The 777, A380 and A350 are (about) in the same category and can do the mission more efficient then the 747-8i.
Honestly; I can't think of any way the 747-8i is better at certain aspects (though; honestly; their must be things the 747-8i is preferable so please; enlighten me )
As for the freighter; maybe some orders here and there but no BIG orders I think. There are other options now and not every airline needs the nose door.
And I don't think all freighter currently flying need a replacing full freighter; cargo is more and more carried below deck.
Even though I wish this was different. The 747 is iconic. I will miss it when in about 3-4 years the KLM 747's are gone at my 'home airport'. Wish they orders the 747-8i. Maybe a 747-8i(M).
ZeeZoo wrote:So I know that the 747-8i is all but dead.....
Iemand91 wrote:....Wish they orders the 747-8i. Maybe a 747-8i(M).
DABYT wrote:I think KL would order a 747-8i(M) but Boeing is not going to build it just for KL
na wrote:There is a fair chance that 50% or more of the 744Fs to be replaced over the next 15 years will be substituted by 748Fs.
DABYT wrote:I think KL would order a 747-8i(M) but Boeing is not going to build it just for KL
Stitch wrote:na wrote:There is a fair chance that 50% or more of the 744Fs to be replaced over the next 15 years will be substituted by 748Fs.
They'll be replaced by 777 Freighters.
na wrote:748 has better and more individual First and Business class compartments, plus the choice between main and upper deck, and the wider seats in Eco as compared to the newest wave of cattle-class 77Ws are also better
aemoreira1981 wrote:Arik Air has two 747-8s on order, and they're supposed to be built this year, but I'd be surprised to see Arik Air take them.
vhtje wrote:Why does AF1 replacement have to be a 747-8? Why can it not be a 777X?
vhtje wrote:Why does AF1 replacement have to be a 747-8? Why can it not be a 777X?
Airlines are CLEARLY favouring the 777 over the 747-8; why not the Air Force?
Stitch wrote:aemoreira1981 wrote:Arik Air has two 747-8s on order, and they're supposed to be built this year, but I'd be surprised to see Arik Air take them.
They were cancelled this week in favor of two 787-9s.
vhtje wrote:Why does AF1 replacement have to be a 747-8? Why can it not be a 777X?
No need to divert in the case of an IFSD with a quad.
(And yes, while ETOPS does not apply to military frames, if a twin carrying the President suffers an IFSD, they will divert.)
LAX772LR wrote:na wrote:No, Twins cant do it better. They can do it a bit cheaper. Thats a difference.
Actually, they can usually do it both better AND cheaper... which is the reason behind them taking over nearly every market aspect out there, from quads.
mhkansan wrote:Unfortunately the days of production quad jets are numbered as twins can do everything they can do but better!
VSMUT wrote:Most airlines of course only look at the last point.
LAX772LR wrote:VSMUT wrote:Most airlines of course only look at the last point.
Not true. Most of the twins offer far more cargo volume (and in some cases, still more uplift even taking OEI into account) than their quad equivalents, and sometimes even quads far larger.
VSMUT wrote:If A or B were to design an A350/777 sized quad today, then it would feature significantly more cargo volume.
LAX772LR wrote:VSMUT wrote:If A or B were to design an A350/777 sized quad today, then it would feature significantly more cargo volume.
Based on what?
The A346, despite its comparative modernity and body derived from twinjets, still fell short of the total cargo capacity of its direct (coincidentally twin) competitor. Same for the A345.
ZeeZoo wrote:na wrote:There's near 200 747-400Fs in service. 50% of that would see 100+ orders of 747-8Fs, you see that much scope for further production?
VSMUT wrote:Based on the fact that all newly designed aircraft have featured more internal cargo volume than their predecessors.
VSMUT wrote:The A340-500/600 has a fuselage that stems from the A300 of 1970s vintage.
VSMUT wrote:The number of engines doesn't have anything to do with cargo volume.
LAX772LR wrote:VSMUT wrote:Based on the fact that all newly designed aircraft have featured more internal cargo volume than their predecessors.
That's not necessarily true, especially within aircraft families.
LAX772LR wrote:Strictly a function of their design philosophy vis-a-vis deference to cost. No external entity forced Airbus' hand to limit it in that fashion.
LAX772LR wrote:VSMUT wrote:The number of engines doesn't have anything to do with cargo volume.
No one's stated nor insinuated a direct dependent linkage between the two
LAX772LR wrote:twins offer far more cargo volume than their quad equivalents
BlueSky1976 wrote:ZeeZoo wrote:na wrote:There's near 200 747-400Fs in service. 50% of that would see 100+ orders of 747-8Fs, you see that much scope for further production?
Enter the 777-300ER passenger-to-freighter conversion programme. It WILL happen, and it's not a question of "if" but "when".
And no, the majority of freight operators do NOT need the nose-loading capability. The few thad need it, already ordered the 747-8F.
vhtje wrote:Why does AF1 replacement have to be a 747-8? Why can it not be a 777X?
Airlines are CLEARLY favouring the 777 over the 747-8; why not the Air Force?
blacksoviet wrote:Why did Lufthansa refuse to accept the whitetail?
BlueSky1976 wrote:ZeeZoo wrote:na wrote:There's near 200 747-400Fs in service. 50% of that would see 100+ orders of 747-8Fs, you see that much scope for further production?
Enter the 777-300ER passenger-to-freighter conversion programme. It WILL happen, and it's not a question of "if" but "when".
And no, the majority of freight operators do NOT need the nose-loading capability. The few thad need it, already ordered the 747-8F.
DABYT wrote:vhtje wrote:Why does AF1 replacement have to be a 747-8? Why can it not be a 777X?
Airlines are CLEARLY favouring the 777 over the 747-8; why not the Air Force?
US Airforce wants a quad because of security reasons. Their priority is not fuel efficiency but security.blacksoviet wrote:Why did Lufthansa refuse to accept the whitetail?
It was more an agreement between Boeing and LH to not take it up as Boeing needed an aircraft for further testing at that time. LH agreed and said it would maybe order a new one later. Of course, now we know this never happened. More info here:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lufthansa-cancels-order-for-747-8i-test-aircraft-380622/
Stitch wrote:aemoreira1981 wrote:Arik Air has two 747-8s on order, and they're supposed to be built this year, but I'd be surprised to see Arik Air take them.
They were cancelled this week in favor of two 787-9s.
vhtje wrote:Why does AF1 replacement have to be a 747-8? Why can it not be a 777X?
No need to divert in the case of an IFSD with a quad.
(And yes, while ETOPS does not apply to military frames, if a twin carrying the President suffers an IFSD, they will divert.)
ZeeZoo wrote:Also, on topic, found this great pic of two iconic 747s (the first 747 and first 747-400 over Seattle in '88)
ZeeZoo wrote:Also, on topic, found this great pic of two iconic 747s (the first 747 and first 747-400 over Seattle in '88)
na wrote:mhkansan wrote:Unfortunately the days of production quad jets are numbered as twins can do everything they can do but better!
No, Twins cant do it better. They can do it a bit cheaper. Thats a difference.
vhtje wrote:Why does AF1 replacement have to be a 747-8? Why can it not be a 777X?
Airlines are CLEARLY favouring the 777 over the 747-8; why not the Air Force?