If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Boeing's possible answer to A380: B747A
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1 http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/sto...LATE=DE FAULT May 14, 5:18 PM EDT Boeing Considers Revamping 747 Jumbo Jet By ALLISON LINN AP Business Writer SEATTLE (AP) -- Even as Boeing Co. touts its sleek new 7E7 as the future of flying, the airplane maker is yet again considering whether to revamp its fabled workhorse, the 747 jumbo jet. In the past decade, Boeing has floated many such plans for updating the 34-year-old 747, as it seeks to counter archrival Airbus' superjumbo A380. But most ideas have been shelved as customer interest failed to materialize. Meanwhile, Airbus has snagged 129 firm orders for the huge A380, a double-decker plane expected to debut in 2006 that will carry about 550 passengers. This time, Boeing is gauging interest in the 747A - for "Advanced" - that would be slightly larger and more technically advanced than the most current model, the 747-400ER. The plane would blend technology from the 7E7 with the 747's size in a package Boeing claims would be far cheaper to fly than the A380. The move comes as orders for the 747 have slowed to a trickle, with most interest remaining in the cargo version of the airplane. The idea for the 747A is still in its initial stages. Boeing spokeswoman Leslie Nichols said this week that a decision on whether to build the plane won't have to be made until at least the end of 2005. If the airplane is approved, it wouldn't be in service until at least 2009. Boeing's Seattle-based commercial airplanes division is focused on the fuel-efficient, mid-sized 7E7, officially launched earlier this year and scheduled to begin service in 2008. Company executives say they believe passengers and airlines mostly want such 200- to 300-seat jets that can fly directly to long-range destinations. They say the market is smaller for much bigger planes, like the 747 and the A380, which could be used to fly between major hubs. But Boeing also appears eager to avoid being trounced by the A380 in the big plane market. Aerospace analyst Richard Aboulafia of the Teal Group said the success of the 747A will depend on whether Boeing is really committed to spending the money to develop it, and whether that investment will be worth it when Boeing goes up against Airbus' extremely aggressive pricing. "I see no reason (the 747) should be obsolete. It's still a fundamentally great design," he said. But, he noted, "The last 10 years are littered with corpses of chances to rejuvenate the 747." The 747 design dates from the late 1960s, though the plane was almost totally redesigned with the 747-400, which started service in 1989. The 747A would hold about 30 more passengers than the extended-range 747-400ER, seating about 450 people instead of 416. In addition to new engines and an updated flight deck, Boeing is considering a complete redesign of the interior, reviving plans to create everything from sleeping areas to conference rooms in unused space at the top of the aircraft. Boeing previously floated similar ideas to add bunks and other amenities to 747s, but airlines didn't bite. The 747A's extra 20 feet of length would not only allow more passengers, but extra cargo space. Alan Mulally, head of Boeing's commercial airlines division, has talked to both Cathay Pacific and Cargolux about their interest in a cargo version of the 747A, but Boeing declined to identify which airlines had been approached about the passenger version. The 747A would incorporate of some of the technology being developed for the 7E7, including new engine designs from General Electric Co. and Rolls-Royce PLC. Boeing says the 747A would be quieter than the current 747s, answering a common complaint about older models of the four-engine plane. Boeing says the new plane would use less fuel per passenger carried than any other jumbo jet, including the A380. And it makes much of the fact that the 747A wouldn't require special modifications at airports. Some airports may have to make changes to terminals or runways to accommodate the big A380. Airbus argues that the A380's size means it will make better use of precious takeoff and landing slots at busy airports, while efficiently using crews and other resources. "They've made several stabs at reinvigorating the 747 and nobody's wanted to buy it," David Venz, a vice president at Airbus North America, said Friday. "If it's so advanced, why hasn't anybody wanted to buy it?" Aboulafia said he believes there's about a 50 percent chance the 747A will get built, but this time the stakes may be higher. If Boeing again chooses to scrap the design, he said, it could be the beginning of the end for the 747. "I think it comes down to the 747 line: Should it stay or should it go?" Aboulafia said. --- On the Net: Boeing: www.boeing.com Airbus: www.airbus.com BL. - -- Brad Littlejohn | Email: Unix Systems Administrator, | Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! | http://www.sbcglobal.net/~tyketto PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAqyS/yBkZmuMZ8L8RAlwTAJ4li+gCpJ+x2Fg0L2lDhKOf4nZWfQCdFS yB FbGUvR3EwfwxeGtnQS252to= =IKQP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Boeing's possible answer to A380: B747A
Interesting article. Wonder why the "expert" believes that the 747 isn't a
obsolete. It seems to me very much to be the case - so much in fact that the so called defragmentation trend in aviation can be seen as being as much a result of the 747 being obsolete than as a result of market forces. It certainly will take more than a face lift to bring this flying Dino into the modern age. To effectively compete with the A380 there needs to be done much more work on the 747 - in fact it seems as if it need an entire new design. Nik. "A Guy Called Tyketto" wrote in message . com... -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/sto...=APWEB&SECTION =HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT May 14, 5:18 PM EDT Boeing Considers Revamping 747 Jumbo Jet By ALLISON LINN AP Business Writer SEATTLE (AP) -- Even as Boeing Co. touts its sleek new 7E7 as the future of flying, the airplane maker is yet again considering whether to revamp its fabled workhorse, the 747 jumbo jet. In the past decade, Boeing has floated many such plans for updating the 34-year-old 747, as it seeks to counter archrival Airbus' superjumbo A380. But most ideas have been shelved as customer interest failed to materialize. Meanwhile, Airbus has snagged 129 firm orders for the huge A380, a double-decker plane expected to debut in 2006 that will carry about 550 passengers. This time, Boeing is gauging interest in the 747A - for "Advanced" - that would be slightly larger and more technically advanced than the most current model, the 747-400ER. The plane would blend technology from the 7E7 with the 747's size in a package Boeing claims would be far cheaper to fly than the A380. The move comes as orders for the 747 have slowed to a trickle, with most interest remaining in the cargo version of the airplane. The idea for the 747A is still in its initial stages. Boeing spokeswoman Leslie Nichols said this week that a decision on whether to build the plane won't have to be made until at least the end of 2005. If the airplane is approved, it wouldn't be in service until at least 2009. Boeing's Seattle-based commercial airplanes division is focused on the fuel-efficient, mid-sized 7E7, officially launched earlier this year and scheduled to begin service in 2008. Company executives say they believe passengers and airlines mostly want such 200- to 300-seat jets that can fly directly to long-range destinations. They say the market is smaller for much bigger planes, like the 747 and the A380, which could be used to fly between major hubs. But Boeing also appears eager to avoid being trounced by the A380 in the big plane market. Aerospace analyst Richard Aboulafia of the Teal Group said the success of the 747A will depend on whether Boeing is really committed to spending the money to develop it, and whether that investment will be worth it when Boeing goes up against Airbus' extremely aggressive pricing. "I see no reason (the 747) should be obsolete. It's still a fundamentally great design," he said. But, he noted, "The last 10 years are littered with corpses of chances to rejuvenate the 747." The 747 design dates from the late 1960s, though the plane was almost totally redesigned with the 747-400, which started service in 1989. The 747A would hold about 30 more passengers than the extended-range 747-400ER, seating about 450 people instead of 416. In addition to new engines and an updated flight deck, Boeing is considering a complete redesign of the interior, reviving plans to create everything from sleeping areas to conference rooms in unused space at the top of the aircraft. Boeing previously floated similar ideas to add bunks and other amenities to 747s, but airlines didn't bite. The 747A's extra 20 feet of length would not only allow more passengers, but extra cargo space. Alan Mulally, head of Boeing's commercial airlines division, has talked to both Cathay Pacific and Cargolux about their interest in a cargo version of the 747A, but Boeing declined to identify which airlines had been approached about the passenger version. The 747A would incorporate of some of the technology being developed for the 7E7, including new engine designs from General Electric Co. and Rolls-Royce PLC. Boeing says the 747A would be quieter than the current 747s, answering a common complaint about older models of the four-engine plane. Boeing says the new plane would use less fuel per passenger carried than any other jumbo jet, including the A380. And it makes much of the fact that the 747A wouldn't require special modifications at airports. Some airports may have to make changes to terminals or runways to accommodate the big A380. Airbus argues that the A380's size means it will make better use of precious takeoff and landing slots at busy airports, while efficiently using crews and other resources. "They've made several stabs at reinvigorating the 747 and nobody's wanted to buy it," David Venz, a vice president at Airbus North America, said Friday. "If it's so advanced, why hasn't anybody wanted to buy it?" Aboulafia said he believes there's about a 50 percent chance the 747A will get built, but this time the stakes may be higher. If Boeing again chooses to scrap the design, he said, it could be the beginning of the end for the 747. "I think it comes down to the 747 line: Should it stay or should it go?" Aboulafia said. --- On the Net: Boeing: www.boeing.com Airbus: www.airbus.com BL. - -- Brad Littlejohn | Email: Unix Systems Administrator, | Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! | http://www.sbcglobal.net/~tyketto PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAqyS/yBkZmuMZ8L8RAlwTAJ4li+gCpJ+x2Fg0L2lDhKOf4nZWfQCdFS yB FbGUvR3EwfwxeGtnQS252to= =IKQP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Boeing's possible answer to A380: B747A
Nik wrote:
Interesting article. Wonder why the "expert" believes that the 747 isn't a obsolete. It seems to me very much to be the case If Boeing transforms the 747 into a FBW plane with common cockpit with that of 777 and 7E7 (as much as possible), shared engines with the 7E7 (newest technology) and better use of new materials to lighten the plane, then why couldn't it be efficient ? Of course, if they lengthen the 747 to add 30 more seats, it will then be as long or longer than the A380 and require similar infrastructure as the A380. The minute Boeing agrees to re-certify the updated 747, then all bets are off because Boeing will have total freedom to implement all the new designs and technology needed while still keeping the general shape. On the other hand, if Boeing just brushes up the existing 747 without type certification, then its hands are tied in terms of of how much it can change the plane and only then do the limitations dating back to the 1960s start to prevent the 747 from competing. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Boeing's possible answer to A380: B747A
"nobody" wrote in message s.com... Nik wrote: Interesting article. Wonder why the "expert" believes that the 747 isn't a obsolete. It seems to me very much to be the case If Boeing transforms the 747 into a FBW plane with common cockpit with that of 777 and 7E7 (as much as possible), shared engines with the 7E7 (newest technology) and better use of new materials to lighten the plane, then why couldn't it be efficient ? Of course, if they lengthen the 747 to add 30 more seats, it will then be as long or longer than the A380 and require similar infrastructure as the A380. The minute Boeing agrees to re-certify the updated 747, then all bets are off because Boeing will have total freedom to implement all the new designs and technology needed while still keeping the general shape. On the other hand, if Boeing just brushes up the existing 747 without type certification, then its hands are tied in terms of of how much it can change the plane and only then do the limitations dating back to the 1960s start to prevent the 747 from competing. I think that it is the general shape that is the problem. Not only does the present shape of the 747 not allow for very much cargo - the 747 in fact holds far less cargo than the A330/40! - the aerodynamic of the plane seems also to be in need of improvement. In its present incarnation the 747 "drinks" about 12 tones of fuel an hour in operation. Compare this to 5 for the A330 and 8 for the 777. Certainly, new engines and perhaps some lighter materials here and there (I believe that what Boeing can do in this regard will be quite limited indeed - or it will be better to design a new plane altogether) might help a little. But to do anything significant, a new much more efficient shape - including a new wing - will be needed. The question of price also comes in to the equation. The present 747 is about 180 million US. Now compare that to about 100 million for the A330 and you can almost buy two 330's for the prize of one 747! No - the days of the 747 has come to an end. Boeing needs not only to have a 747NG. They need a new thing. But the question in this context is, whether or not Boeing after developing the 7E7 (if it is ever going to be commercially successful - don't count the Japanese as they most likely bought the plane due more to political rather than economical reasons) need to take a long and hard look at the 737NG. Possibly, the NG decision was the worst decision Boeing ever made as it leaves them now in a situation where they will have to re-develop their entire product line save the 777. Nik |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Boeing's possible answer to A380: B747A
On Thu, 20 May 2004 15:58:35 +0800, "Nik"
wrote: Interesting article. Wonder why the "expert" believes that the 747 isn't a obsolete. It seems to me very much to be the case - so much in fact that the so called defragmentation trend in aviation can be seen as being as much a result of the 747 being obsolete than as a result of market forces. It certainly will take more than a face lift to bring this flying Dino into the modern age. To effectively compete with the A380 there needs to be done much more work on the 747 - in fact it seems as if it need an entire new design. Nik. I just wish Boeing would make up their mind which story they are going with. Their idea was supposed to have us all sitting in small planes waiting to enter overcrowded air space, then stacking for hours hoping for a landing slot at an overcrowded airport. Seems like they are backtracking on that now. --==++AJC++==-- |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Boeing's possible answer to A380: B747A
Nik wrote:
No - the days of the 747 has come to an end. Boeing needs not only to have a 747NG. They need a new thing. But the question in this context is, whether or not Boeing after developing the 7E7 ... need to take a long and hard look at the 737NG. Possibly, the NG decision was the worst decision Boeing ever made as it leaves them now in a situation where they will have to re-develop their entire product line save the 777. R&D money goes where a single dollar will yield the most improvements. The 737NG is a very good exmaple of this. Boeing was able to bring that product line close enough to the A320 family with relaitevly little money compared to if it had started a totally new 737 from scratch with full type certification etc, which would have yieldded only marginal improvement over the 320 family. Also, consider that if Boeing caused the development of a new much more fuel efficient engine for its 737, chances are that Airbus would eventually adopt that engine for the A320 family which would then negate the performance advantage 737s would have. I think commercial aviation is getting to be like the olympics. Early on, records were broken by many seconds. Then, they had to get more precise timers down to the tenths of seconds. Then the hundredts, and now down to 1/1000 of seconds because athletes have reached a certain level of performance where only marginal improvements still happen. In a way, the 737NG may not have been such a bad idea. In 5 years, Boeing could start on a totally new 737, while Airbus will still be stuck with its A320, and at that point, the differences in technologies might give Boeing's new 737 a definite advantage over the now aging A320, reversing the situation Airbus had enjoyed since the late 1980s. But at the time Being did the 737NG, I don't think that a brand new 737 would have yielded such a huge advantage over the A320 and thus may not have been a justified investment. However, with the 777 and 7E7 sporting FBW cockpits, customers will now start to want common cockpit with 737 so the pressure will start on Boeing to make a uniform cockpit for all its commercial planes. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Boeing's possible answer to A380: B747A
"nobody" wrote in message s.com... Nik wrote: No - the days of the 747 has come to an end. Boeing needs not only to have a 747NG. They need a new thing. But the question in this context is, whether or not Boeing after developing the 7E7 ... need to take a long and hard look at the 737NG. Possibly, the NG decision was the worst decision Boeing ever made as it leaves them now in a situation where they will have to re-develop their entire product line save the 777. R&D money goes where a single dollar will yield the most improvements. The 737NG is a very good exmaple of this. Boeing was able to bring that product line close enough to the A320 family with relaitevly little money compared to if it had started a totally new 737 from scratch with full type certification etc, which would have yieldded only marginal improvement over the 320 family. It seems tha the 737 now is well under way to become obsolete - the NG only giving it a short extra lifespan. In five years time Boeing will have the 777 and the 7E7 and have the choice of which of the 747 or the 737 to re-develop. Certainly the RD$ is going to where it is most efficient - however, the evaluation of this is highly dependent on what timeframe you are looking at - three months or a few years. And don't forget. Airbus will at that time be three years into their next project! Also, consider that if Boeing caused the development of a new much more fuel efficient engine for its 737, chances are that Airbus would eventually adopt that engine for the A320 family which would then negate the performance advantage 737s would have. The performance advantage of the 737 should be in the development of a new and more efficient airframe with some modern new FBW systems. I think commercial aviation is getting to be like the olympics. Early on, records were broken by many seconds. Then, they had to get more precise timers down to the tenths of seconds. Then the hundredts, and now down to 1/1000 of seconds because athletes have reached a certain level of performance where only marginal improvements still happen. You are properly right here. However, the 737 as well as the 747 are both very old designs In a way, the 737NG may not have been such a bad idea. In 5 years, Boeing could start on a totally new 737, while Airbus will still be stuck with its A320, and at that point, the differences in technologies might give Boeing's new 737 a definite advantage over the now aging A320, reversing the situation Airbus had enjoyed since the late 1980s. In five years Airbus will be three years into their new project and either be re-developing the 320 or the 330/40 and Being will need to make the choice of either going for a new 747 or a new 737. But at the time Being did the 737NG, I don't think that a brand new 737 would have yielded such a huge advantage over the A320 and thus may not have been a justified investment. Or the leadership was given stock options and believes that they personally would get the most if they took a short term view rather than a long term one. However, with the 777 and 7E7 sporting FBW cockpits, customers will now start to want common cockpit with 737 so the pressure will start on Boeing to make a uniform cockpit for all its commercial planes. Nik |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Boeing's possible answer to A380: B747A
"Nik" wrote:
It seems tha the 737 now is well under way to become obsolete - the NG only giving it a short extra lifespan. In five years time Boeing will have the 777 and the 7E7 and have the choice of which of the 747 or the 737 to re-develop. Certainly the RD$ is going to where it is most efficient - however, the evaluation of this is highly dependent on what timeframe you are looking at - three months or a few years. The problem the 737 has is that both RJ manufacturers are growing their product lines larger to cover the 737 market. In a few years it will be very difficult to compete against them... |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Boeing's possible answer to A380: B747A
"Clark W. Griswold, Jr." wrote:
The problem the 737 has is that both RJ manufacturers are growing their product lines larger to cover the 737 market. In a few years it will be very difficult to compete against them... The flying skidoo and jungle jets have an artificial benefit that exists solely due to unions. Pilot costs are way lower because they are "regional" jets versus "real jets". David Neeleman (Jetblue president) stated unequivocally on PBS shortly after he annoucned the order of jungle jets that those jets actually cost more to operate per passengers than larger aircraft. This is because to JetBlue, there is no artificial discrimination of wages between regional and real jet. Air Canada on the other hand, because it doesn't know how to fix its own problems, wants to buy 90 regional jets and shift flights to its regional operator which is its low cost operation due to lower wages, different union. (Tango was only "low fare", it wasn't low cost since it was essentially an AC mainline operation). However, should the Jazz union merge with that of its mainline, then Air Canada would lose any artificial advantage it had and would then find itself in the same situation as JetBlue with the smaller jets costing more per pax than the bigger ones. There is a cost to wanting high frequency service. And the irony is that in chosing low price over frequency, enough people have switched to low cost carriers that their frequencies are now interestingly competitive with those of mainlines. But those frequencies are driven by demand, not marketing. The regional jets are quite different from 737s due to their range, cabin size, toilet size, and general comfort levels not designed for anything about 1.5 hours. And just like there is an artificial dislike of turopprop planes, there may be some artificial dislike of smaller regional jets in 2-2 or 2-1 config (much narrower fuselage). Boeing is now somewhat stuck. By making the 7E7 bigger than the 767, and cancelling the 757, it is giving the 737 a mission to fill the gap between the 737 and the 7E7. Not very likely to see 737s shrink much more. How come the big airlines aren't rushing to buy the 100 seat jungle jet ? Because their unions wouldn't allow the regional operator to drive the plane, and if they are forced to operate it as a mainline jet, it ends up costing more than to operate. If you have a thin route, you don't need 100 seater. 50 or 70 works fine and then you run it as a regional. If legacy airlines stopped being so stubborn about the need for high frequency, I think we'd all see a much clearer picture of what sort of planes are really needed. And I think that Boeing is perhaps doing the right thing in allowing the legacy airlines to decide what they really want to become before Boeing starts to consider the future of the 737. As for the 747, I think that Boeing's goal is probably just to keep the thing alive for now, so that it has something available should airlines decide to drop frequency and opt for cost savings for intl routes. Another note from Max Ward's book In 1973, Wardair got its first 737 for $24 million. In 1991, a 747-400 costs about $130 million (and I guess that in 2004, about $180 million). Ward says that the costs of the 747 have far outdistanced yields, pricing itself out of the competition. Wardair sold its now used 747s in the 1980s for more money than they had bought them for brand new. They couldn't afford new 747s anymore. (that is how it ended up making enough money to order those A310s). So perhaps what Boeing really needs is to look at the cost of building 747s and find a way to lower the sale price of the 747. Bring the price down, and you'd find plenty of low cost operators and charter operators jumping into the 747 bandwagon, and it woudl also make the A380 look way too expensive compared to a "low cost 747". In essence, what has probably happened at Boeing is that only the 737's price is set to allow low yield passengers, while its 777 and 747 are too expensive to fill with low yield pax. Lowering the price of 747 to something near the 777 would also force Boeing to lower price of 777. Perhaps this isn't a technology issue after all. Perhaps it is just a pricing issue. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Boeing's possible answer to A380: B747A
"nobody" wrote in message
s.com... So perhaps what Boeing really needs is to look at the cost of building 747s and find a way to lower the sale price of the 747. Bring the price down, and you'd find plenty of low cost operators and charter operators jumping into the 747 bandwagon, and it woudl also make the A380 look way too expensive compared to a "low cost 747". When China starts making commercial airliners for the worldwide market, it will be interesting to see how Boeing, Airbus, Embraer and Bombardier are gonna handle it. China still has a couple hundred million people looking for work, and the PRC government likes big projects. Perhaps Boeing can license the old 747-400 design to China's aerospace agencies and they can produce it for cheap. Doubt China will soon be in the commercial airliner business? I don't. I think it will happen within the next decade, unless China has an economic collapse. China is fully capable of manufacturing just about everything else. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Virgin Delays Delivery of A380 by 1 Year | [email protected] | Air travel | 5 | May 20th, 2004 07:45 PM |
Airbus begins A380 production | taqai | Air travel | 2 | May 9th, 2004 07:52 AM |
A380 - Flying in on a wing and a flair | taqai | Air travel | 19 | April 7th, 2004 04:51 AM |
A380 operating questions | Vareck Bostrom | Air travel | 18 | February 2nd, 2004 04:28 PM |
Qatar Airways orders A380 and A340-600 | taqai | Air travel | 1 | December 10th, 2003 05:45 PM |