Who is most likely to place an "end of the line" order for the 748?

KTPAFlyer · Tue May 23, 2017 7:08 am

Hello A.net,

With the inevitable end of the 747-8 program not too far, what airline is the most likely to place an order for the final few frames? I can think of at least a few airlines that would be serious contenders if they got a great "end of the line" sale with Boeing at fire sale prices. As the saying goes, "At a good enough price, everyone will bite."

StTim · Tue May 23, 2017 7:12 am

The frames for the AF1 replacement haven't been placed yet.

LAX772LR · Tue May 23, 2017 7:35 am

KTPAFlyer wrote:
With the inevitable end of the 747-8 program not too far, what airline is the most likely to place an order for the final few frames?

None, IMO.

It's a frame that has been clearly and thoroughly rejected by the market as a whole, it would likely have nil resale value, it carries the inherent risk of needing to fill 400+ seats, and it doesn't really offer anything that can't be replicated/exceeded by any (combination of) more popular aircraft.... none of which is exactly a tempting proposition for a new carrier.

I wouldn't be surprised if any remaining -8i orders are private/government only.

Noshow · Tue May 23, 2017 8:17 am

How about Amazon or UPS? Couldn't they need something big with long, transpacific range? After the 747 it will be super-midsized twins forever on the cargo market.

ZK-NBT · Tue May 23, 2017 8:40 am

Noshow wrote:
How about Amazon or UPS? Couldn't they need something big with long, transpacific range? After the 747 it will be super-midsized twins forever on the cargo market.

UPS just ordered 14! Plus 14 options. I'd have to say the op meant PAX aircraft. CA maybe for a few more?

There are several large 744F fleets around such as CI which nothing has been ordered yet. Most of them are early mid 2000's built.

5X have a lot of 744's of various ages.

TigerFlyer · Tue May 23, 2017 9:55 am

Yeah, sadly I think the queen of the skies has lost her throne. Even the Air Force One replacement seems misguided. One of the cited rationale for the current replacement effort is the lack of replacement parts for the current 747-200 based fleet. With such a small number of 747-8s ordered and in service, indefinite product support going forward seems dicey. US Government should get with the program and realize like the FAA and the rest of the world that the 77W is just as safe.

jumbojet · Tue May 23, 2017 10:38 am

[quote="TigerFlyer"]Yeah, sadly I think the queen of the skies has lost her throne. quote]

The queen of the skies will always be tied to the 747 and in all variants, from the 100 to the 800, it will never lose its throne. The 747 program, while most likely at the end of its rope, has lived a very long and fruitful life, unlike its direct competitor, the A380. So, while the 748i might not have been successful, its still tied to and part of the whole very successful 747 program. The A380 on the other hand, all variants, will die a much faster death than the entirety of the 747 program. Long live the Queen of the skies.

TigerFlyer · Tue May 23, 2017 11:09 am

jumbojet wrote:
TigerFlyer wrote:
Yeah, sadly I think the queen of the skies has lost her throne. quote]

The queen of the skies will always be tied to the 747 and in all variants, from the 100 to the 800, it will never lose its throne. The 747 program, while most likely at the end of its rope, has lived a very long and fruitful life, unlike its direct competitor, the A380. So, while the 748i might not have been successful, its still tied to and part of the whole very successful 747 program. The A380 on the other hand, all variants, will die a much faster death than the entirety of the 747 program. Long live the Queen of the skies.

Oh, please don't misinterpret. I didn't mean to disrespect the queen. I love the 747 and think it was one of the greatest and most beautiful aircraft ever built. I've spent hundreds of hours on the upper deck over the Pacific and there is nothing like it. Its just that her reign is over. And I'm genuinely sad about that. The A380 is an aesthetic abomination by comparison. There is simply no demand for 4 engine VLA aircraft.

b747400erf · Tue May 23, 2017 11:27 am

The Air Force needs replacements for both VC-25's and also their fleet of E-4A's

Maybe more freighters can be sold to Atlas and others that are still successful flying -400s and small number of -8Fs.

I doubt any passenger airlines but if oil prices go up maybe Gulf carriers more as pandering to the American government that is about it. 4 engines are not profitable competing with the current and nextgen twins on the market.

ojjunior · Tue May 23, 2017 11:31 am

jumbojet wrote:
The A380 on the other hand, all variants, will die a much faster death than the entirety of the 747 program. Long live the Queen of the skies.

No matter how long the program A or B lasted, both brought serious bucks to the manufacturers, even if the market did not accept well either one or another and sooner or later they will go out of line, they have seriously helped the manufacturers cashier, and will still do that for a long time in the spare parts market.
Maybe the airlines do not miss it, just the enthusiasts.
I would not call it failure.
Regardless, nothing's gonna kill the 747 reputation as the Queen of the skies while this blue whale from Airbus is soon going to be stranded.

TigerFlyer · Tue May 23, 2017 12:00 pm

ojjunior wrote:
jumbojet wrote:
The A380 on the other hand, all variants, will die a much faster death than the entirety of the 747 program. Long live the Queen of the skies.

No matter how long the program A or B lasted, both brought serious bucks to the manufacturers, even if the market did not accept well either one or another and sooner or later they will go out of line, they have seriously helped the manufacturers cashier, and will still do that for a long time in the spare parts market.
Maybe the airlines do not miss it, just the enthusiasts.
I would not call it failure.
Regardless, nothing's gonna kill the 747 reputation as the Queen of the skies while this blue whale from Airbus is soon going to be stranded.

I'm not so sure that the A380 contributed to Airbus's cashier: "Facing an almost inevitable demise just a decade into commercial operation, the A380 never met Airbus’s aspirations, and the company has long since given up on recouping its 25 billion euros ($28 billion) in development costs." https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... as-of-2018

Boeing felt compelled to match with a VLA of its own, but one might wonder if they would have been further ahead avoiding the major development costs of the 747-8 and competing with a 747-400NEO, with new engines and a few aerodynamic tweaks.

KarelXWB · Tue May 23, 2017 12:11 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
it would likely have nil resale value

This.

While the 747-8 is a good lifter, financing the aircraft is an issue. Looking at this thread, one can understand why nobody wants to finance brand new 747-8i aircraft.

WPvsMW · Tue May 23, 2017 1:19 pm

My prognostication: Production of the B748 will survive production of the A380 just as the B747 family survived the Concorde. The theory of VLAs for slot-constrained airports is valid, and the 748 doesn't need new airport infrastructure. As more airports become slot-contstrained, demand for 748s will increase, and high-cycle A380s will be cannibalized.

Newbiepilot · Tue May 23, 2017 1:34 pm

I think UPS, Atlas, Cargolux, AirBridgeCargo, and Silkway are all likely airlines to order more 747-8Fs. I think the 747-8F resale values are going to remain high and in those planes will probably be in service for over 30 years. They have unique capabilities that can only be matched by Antonovs.

Noshow · Tue May 23, 2017 1:37 pm

Boeing might have guaranteed certain production numbers to their partners. That might be a reason to keep it going even at ultra low rate now. I hope they get new orders and have some healthy years. The A380 seems to depend on what Emirates orders. I can't imagine Emirates phasing out older A380s in the future without buying or leasing new ones. They need the biggest hub plane possible to develop Dubai and that need won't change.

na · Tue May 23, 2017 1:45 pm

Must we really have a thread about this every other week?

Newbiepilot · Tue May 23, 2017 1:48 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
it would likely have nil resale value

This.

While the 747-8 is a good lifter, financing the aircraft is an issue. Looking at this thread, one can understand why nobody wants to finance brand new 747-8i aircraft.

I agree with low resale value if we are talking about passenger planes, but disagree when talking freighters. The freighter pricing is still strong. While the dedicated freighter market is shrinking, it still exceeds the current number of 777Fs and 748Fs in service.

Noshow · Tue May 23, 2017 1:51 pm

Must we really have a thread about this every other week?

Feel free to ignore it.

Waterbomber · Tue May 23, 2017 1:51 pm

The UPS order is the end of the line order. There is nothing else to deliver, is there?
I think that the VC-25's will be built and then the line closed unless there is a KC-10 replacement procurement.

raylee67 · Tue May 23, 2017 1:51 pm

Would Amazon be interested in getting some to expand its delivery capabilities internationally? Doing so would allow it to control the cost of overseas shipping, which is a big obstacle in attracting overseas customers to amazon.com, which by far has more merchandise available at lower prices than overseas Amazon sites and many online competitors in and out of US.

Sooner787 · Tue May 23, 2017 1:57 pm

I'm convinced the new AF1 frames will be the final pax frames off the line.

Heck, if the MOM becomes reality, Boeing will need the space occupied
by the 747 line to set up the MOM production line

Noshow · Tue May 23, 2017 1:59 pm

Boeing wants to build some future BWB as a military transport and tanker. This prevents any more 747-8 military transport or tanker orders. Otherwise the need for the BWB would move to the right.

Busyboy2 · Tue May 23, 2017 2:03 pm

TigerFlyer wrote:
Yeah, sadly I think the queen of the skies has lost her throne. Even the Air Force One replacement seems misguided. One of the cited rationale for the current replacement effort is the lack of replacement parts for the current 747-200 based fleet. With such a small number of 747-8s ordered and in service, indefinite product support going forward seems dicey. US Government should get with the program and realize like the FAA and the rest of the world that the 77W is just as safe.

The United States Air Force requires all presidential
Airplanes to be 4 engines. The air force 1 replacement will be a 747-8.

Strato2 · Tue May 23, 2017 2:15 pm

ojjunior wrote:
Regardless, nothing's gonna kill the 747 reputation as the Queen of the skies while this blue whale from Airbus is soon going to be stranded.

The 747 so-called reputation is already in tatters as more and more are scrapped and the utter failure of 747-8i. Those who remember must be thinking what's that hunchback from the time Beatles was hot is still clogging the runways. :smile:

Roadcruiser1 · Tue May 23, 2017 2:17 pm

Noshow wrote:
How about Amazon or UPS? Couldn't they need something big with long, transpacific range? After the 747 it will be super-midsized twins forever on the cargo market.

No probably not. There are Boeing 777 freighters. They are much more efficient, and they can fly farther. Why would you want anything else if you operate freight?

ojjunior · Tue May 23, 2017 2:24 pm

na wrote:
Must we really have a thread about this every other week?

Just don't click.
Have a great day!

Boeing778X · Tue May 23, 2017 2:45 pm

TigerFlyer wrote:
Yeah, sadly I think the queen of the skies has lost her throne. Even the Air Force One replacement seems misguided. One of the cited rationale for the current replacement effort is the lack of replacement parts for the current 747-200 based fleet. With such a small number of 747-8s ordered and in service, indefinite product support going forward seems dicey. US Government should get with the program and realize like the FAA and the rest of the world that the 77W is just as safe.

The Queen will NEVER lose her throne! The 747 will always be The Queen of the Skies.

She needs a worthy successor though, and that will be the 777X :biggrin:

Strato2 wrote:
ojjunior wrote:
Regardless, nothing's gonna kill the 747 reputation as the Queen of the skies while this blue whale from Airbus is soon going to be stranded.

The 747 so-called reputation is already in tatters as more and more are scrapped and the utter failure of 747-8i. Those who remember must be thinking what's that hunchback from the time Beatles was hot is still clogging the runways.

That's a pretty impressive fantasy you got going there. Somebody's a hater!

SCAT15F · Tue May 23, 2017 2:56 pm

The 748i didn't have to be such a failure. There are a number of elements which have nothing to do with the fact that the 748 is a 4-holer that are to blame:

-The diversion of resources for the 787 and resulting EIS delays hurt it.
-GE's failure to deliver engines on spec hurt it (still not on spec after pip),
-The decision to exclude Rolls Royce hurt it,
-The hand-off to the Moscow design center hurt it (massive weight gain)
-The lack of a robust efficiency improvement program hurt it (Ozark was only partially implemented and too late).

I figure all those elements together would have been worth at least another 50 to 75 intercontinentals, and minus the market-entry delays, perhaps more. (to say nothing of freighters)

Boeing778X · Tue May 23, 2017 3:16 pm

SCAT15F wrote:
The 748i didn't have to be such a failure. There are a number of elements which have nothing to do with the fact that the 748 is a 4-holer that are to blame:

-The diversion of resources for the 787 and resulting EIS delays hurt it.
-GE's failure to deliver engines on spec hurt it (still not on spec after pip),
-The decision to exclude Rolls Royce hurt it,
-The hand-off to the Moscow design center hurt it (massive weight gain)
-The lack of a robust efficiency improvement program hurt it (Ozark was only partially implemented and too late).

I figure all those elements together would have been worth at least another 50 to 75 intercontinentals, and minus the market-entry delays, perhaps more. (to say nothing of freighters)

The Rolls Royce option alone could have attracted BA and perhaps even CX. That could have been 50-70x units.

But let's be frank. The 747-8 was 8-10 years too late for its own good. In retrospect, so is the A380. It should be noted that a 50 year run is a testament to the success of the type, and although production is ending, the 747 has decades of service left.

Going forward, the 777F and possibly 777-8F will replace the 747-8F, though nothing will have the lifting power of the 748.

airbazar · Tue May 23, 2017 3:24 pm

TigerFlyer wrote:
Yeah, sadly I think the queen of the skies has lost her throne. Even the Air Force One replacement seems misguided. One of the cited rationale for the current replacement effort is the lack of replacement parts for the current 747-200 based fleet. With such a small number of 747-8s ordered and in service, indefinite product support going forward seems dicey. US Government should get with the program and realize like the FAA and the rest of the world that the 77W is just as safe.

For the right money I'm sure Boeing would hang 2 extra engines on the 779

Sooner787 wrote:
I'm convinced the new AF1 frames will be the final pax frames off the line.

With all its modifications I would hardly call it a pax airplane though.

Busyboy2 wrote:
The United States Air Force requires all presidential
Airplanes to be 4 engines. The air force 1 replacement will be a 747-8.

Requirements change over time, all the time.

KarelXWB · Tue May 23, 2017 3:24 pm

Boeing778X wrote:
SCAT15F wrote:
-The decision to exclude Rolls Royce hurt it,

The Rolls Royce option alone could have attracted BA and perhaps even CX. That could have been 50-70x units.

I tend to agree. Willie Walsh once mentioned that BA couldn't reach an agreement with GE, hence they went for the A380 with RR powerplants.

keesje · Tue May 23, 2017 3:26 pm

SCAT15F wrote:
The 748i didn't have to be such a failure. There are a number of elements which have nothing to do with the fact that the 748 is a 4-holer that are to blame:

-The diversion of resources for the 787 and resulting EIS delays hurt it.
-GE's failure to deliver engines on spec hurt it (still not on spec after pip),
-The decision to exclude Rolls Royce hurt it,
-The hand-off to the Moscow design center hurt it (massive weight gain)
-The lack of a robust efficiency improvement program hurt it (Ozark was only partially implemented and too late).

I figure all those elements together would have been worth at least another 50 to 75 intercontinentals, and minus the market-entry delays, perhaps more. (to say nothing of freighters)

Maybe something bigger & better hit the market too. https://ih0.redbubble.net/image.353361388.5250/flat,800x800,075,t.u35.jpg

hOMSaR · Tue May 23, 2017 3:29 pm

Boeing778X wrote:
The 747-8 was 8-10 years too late for its own good.

But, in a sense, it was available 8-10 years earlier and still didn't attract much of any interest.

The 747-8 is essentially the production output of the 747-X study of the early 2000s, which itself was the result of Boeing's inability to get the 747-500/600 program off the ground, so to speak, in the 1990s.

2175301 · Tue May 23, 2017 3:38 pm

There could be some orders of the passenger variant (perhaps 10-20 frames total) if the closure of the A380 line is announced before the passenger variant is phased out.

I actually think the Freighter version will solder on for some years (and perhaps another decade or more) as it has unique capabilities that a 777F cannot match. While there is not a large demand for those capabilities... there is a steady demand for them; and I suspect that will continue.

Have a great day,

ASQ400 · Tue May 23, 2017 3:44 pm

The 748 line was doomed from the start. The VLA segment was small, and the A380 seized it by the time the 748 was starting up.
Right now it's only being kept open long enough to make a new AF1

Boeing778X · Tue May 23, 2017 4:05 pm

hOMSaR wrote:
Boeing778X wrote:
The 747-8 was 8-10 years too late for its own good.

But, in a sense, it was available 8-10 years earlier and still didn't attract much of any interest.

The 747-8 is essentially the production output of the 747-X study of the early 2000s, which itself was the result of Boeing's inability to get the 747-500/600 program off the ground, so to speak, in the 1990s.

The 747-X was never commercially launched, so it's actual interest was never known. I'd argue that the 747-500/-600 would have done better than the -8 in terms of sales.

Slug71 · Tue May 23, 2017 4:20 pm

b747400erf wrote:
The Air Force needs replacements for both VC-25's and also their fleet of E-4A's

Pretty sure I read some time ago, that the E4 capabilities can be implemented into the VC-25 replacements now.

TC957 · Tue May 23, 2017 4:44 pm

What happened to the rumoured Air Bridge order for 20 748F's ?
One airline I do see coming in for a few frames is Asiana Cargo.

32andBelow · Tue May 23, 2017 4:54 pm

As long as they are making the F version I don't see why they wouldn't offer it.

kanban · Tue May 23, 2017 4:58 pm

the last three or 4 off the line will be 747-8F white tails and go to storage.. they will eventually be sold.. so no airline will be placing the end of the line order.

ojjunior · Tue May 23, 2017 5:37 pm

airbazar wrote:
Busyboy2 wrote:
The United States Air Force requires all presidential
Airplanes to be 4 engines. The air force 1 replacement will be a 747-8.

Requirements change over time, all the time.

Said the Japanese:

32andBelow · Tue May 23, 2017 5:55 pm

They actually use that whole top deck for their comms suite tho. Would they move that to the cargo are of the 777?

Bricktop · Tue May 23, 2017 5:59 pm

8i? Done. The B779 was the death blow.
8F? I can see that dribbling on for a while.

Flighty · Tue May 23, 2017 6:00 pm

TigerFlyer wrote:
Yeah, sadly I think the queen of the skies has lost her throne. Even the Air Force One replacement seems misguided. One of the cited rationale for the current replacement effort is the lack of replacement parts for the current 747-200 based fleet. With such a small number of 747-8s ordered and in service, indefinite product support going forward seems dicey. US Government should get with the program and realize like the FAA and the rest of the world that the 77W is just as safe.

Hear, hear. Given the amount of equipment miniaturization in the past 30-40 years, (and I've heard a few rationales for the quad jet), I just don't think it is VIABLE anymore to insist on a 747 platform, never mind optimal. It is not viable. And there is almost no reason to do it. I guess in case of an in-flight shutdown it avoids diverting to Hainan island and having the aircraft ripped apart by a strategic foe. But would they really dare do that to the president's airplane? Who would?

IMO, 777 or 787-9 is perfectly okay for VVIP transportation and/or massive command role.

Stitch · Tue May 23, 2017 6:01 pm

Boeing778X wrote:
The 747-X was never commercially launched, so it's actual interest was never known. I'd argue that the 747-500/-600 would have done better than the -8 in terms of sales.

LH expressed serious interest in the 747-X (which is probably why the agreed to launch the Intercontinental). As for the 747-500X and 747-600X, MH and TG agreed to a dozen frames between them, but the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis killed those MoUs and BA decided it would rather partner with AA for lift across the Atlantic and decided against ordering the 747-600X.

KarelXWB · Tue May 23, 2017 6:14 pm

Stitch wrote:
Boeing778X wrote:
The 747-X was never commercially launched, so it's actual interest was never known. I'd argue that the 747-500/-600 would have done better than the -8 in terms of sales.

LH expressed serious interest in the 747-X (which is probably why the agreed to launch the Intercontinental). As for the 747-500X and 747-600X, MH and TG agreed to a dozen frames between them, but the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis killed those MoUs and BA decided it would rather partner with AA for lift across the Atlantic and decided against ordering the 747-600X.

And Boeing officially dropped 747-X plans once they started working on the Sonic Cruiser.

b747400erf · Tue May 23, 2017 6:29 pm

ojjunior wrote:
airbazar wrote:
Busyboy2 wrote:
The United States Air Force requires all presidential
Airplanes to be 4 engines. The air force 1 replacement will be a 747-8.

Requirements change over time, all the time.

Said the Japanese:

The American military still has a cold war mentality of readiness and their budgets keep getting bigger so they have no reason to change now. Japan is a small country protected by America, the situations are not comparable.

JeffinMass · Tue May 23, 2017 7:06 pm

Someone here has written that the US Government requires four engines on the presidential aircraft. That is an interesting case. Say the new AF-1s are built and they are B748s. Let's also say they last twenty years. What happens then if there aren't any B748s being built? If true there won't be any four engine aircraft being built either. What will the government do then?
I think if anyone was going to order B748s it would have been EK. They may not be able to replace their A380s with A380s. Neither will QR or EY. UA being a US airline would have been the logical choice.

TigerFlyer · Tue May 23, 2017 7:12 pm

Busyboy2 wrote:
The United States Air Force requires all presidential
Airplanes to be 4 engines. The air force 1 replacement will be a 747-8.

I expect you are right that the next Air Force one will be a 747-8. That doesn't make it the best choice, but it will be the choice. Just because the air force wants 4 engines and makes it an RFP "requirement" doesn't mean that it needs to be a requirement. There is nothing in the Constitution that says the President must fly on 4 engines. Air Force One is just a call sign, and twins including Gulfstreams have served the role on various occasions.

ASQ400 · Tue May 23, 2017 7:21 pm

JeffinMass wrote:
Someone here has written that the US Government requires four engines on the presidential aircraft. That is an interesting case. Say the new AF-1s are built and they are B748s. Let's also say they last twenty years. What happens then if there aren't any B748s being built? If true there won't be any four engine aircraft being built either. What will the government do then?
I think if anyone was going to order B748s it would have been EK. They may not be able to replace their A380s with A380s. Neither will QR or EY. UA being a US airline would have been the logical choice.

Because the 748 came too late, A380 owns the VLA market segment, or as much of it as exists. An A380neo would probably be able to seize the A380 routes better than a 747 max when the A388 comes to the end of its life, due to compatibility.
The 748 frankly hasn't got a tech advantage to make it an A388 replacement, just a competitor. Thus, no way the 748 is going to replace the EK fleet when it comes out of service in the 2020's and 30's.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net