A Travel and vacations forum. TravelBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » TravelBanter forum » Travelling Style » Air travel
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Boeing's possible answer to A380: B747A



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old May 23rd, 2004, 06:05 AM
Nik
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Boeing's possible answer to A380: B747A


"James Robinson" wrote in message
...
nobody wrote:

James Robinson wrote:

The price of those larger aircraft do allow low yield passengers,

since
the cost per seat-mile is below that of the smaller aircraft, like the
737.


But airlines also have to factor in the purchase and/or leasing costs,

not
just operating costs. If you can buy 2 midsized aircraft for not far

from the
cost of a single 747, then airlines are artificially forced to buy the

less
efficient aircraft versus the 747. That was the point made by Max Ward

(and
what wardair ended up having to do.


That makes no sense. If the smaller aircraft are about the same price
per seat as the larger one, and if the larger one is more efficient,
they will buy the larger aircraft if they can fill the seats.

Air Canada's problem was that they couldn't consistently fill all the
seats on a 747, hence the preference for combos and smaller aircraft.

Wardair had the same problem as competition built up on the routes they
were serving.


The A330 is about 100 million US. The 747 about 180....




  #22  
Old May 23rd, 2004, 04:21 PM
Clark W. Griswold, Jr.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Boeing's possible answer to A380: B747A

James Robinson wrote:

The RJ manufacturers have a ways to go to match the size of the current
737 products. They hold 189 people in a single class configuration.
That is much larger than any RJ currently available.


True. I was think more along the lines of the 737-300 series, which had a max
capacity of 149 and a typical (ie SWA) config in the 130s. The Embraer 195 will
hold about 120 with a similar seat pitch- not so far off.
  #23  
Old May 23rd, 2004, 07:02 PM
des_frites_encore_des_frites
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Boeing's possible answer to A380: B747A

"Nik" wrote in message ...
"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.


I guess you'll be disappointed to learn that the 744 is still a very
fuel efficient aircraft.
If you compare it to the A343, at FL 350, flying at 865 km/h, an A343
weighing 200T burns about 105 kg of fuel per min whereas a 744 flying
at 910 km/h weighing 300T burns about 165 kg of fuel per min.
The 744 carries about 55% more passengers than the A343, has a 50%
greater payload (hence cargo capacity by weight) and burns about 55%
more than the A343.
They both have about the same fuel efficiency per passenger carried
despite the 744 flying faster.
  #24  
Old May 23rd, 2004, 07:02 PM
des_frites_encore_des_frites
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Boeing's possible answer to A380: B747A

"Nik" wrote in message ...
"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.


I guess you'll be disappointed to learn that the 744 is still a very
fuel efficient aircraft.
If you compare it to the A343, at FL 350, flying at 865 km/h, an A343
weighing 200T burns about 105 kg of fuel per min whereas a 744 flying
at 910 km/h weighing 300T burns about 165 kg of fuel per min.
The 744 carries about 55% more passengers than the A343, has a 50%
greater payload (hence cargo capacity by weight) and burns about 55%
more than the A343.
They both have about the same fuel efficiency per passenger carried
despite the 744 flying faster.
  #25  
Old May 25th, 2004, 02:14 AM
Nik
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Boeing's possible answer to A380: B747A


"des_frites_encore_des_frites" wrote in message
om...
"Nik" wrote in message

...
"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.


I guess you'll be disappointed to learn that the 744 is still a very
fuel efficient aircraft.
If you compare it to the A343, at FL 350, flying at 865 km/h, an A343
weighing 200T burns about 105 kg of fuel per min whereas a 744 flying
at 910 km/h weighing 300T burns about 165 kg of fuel per min.
The 744 carries about 55% more passengers than the A343, has a 50%
greater payload (hence cargo capacity by weight) and burns about 55%
more than the A343.
They both have about the same fuel efficiency per passenger carried
despite the 744 flying faster.


Well well

Passengers 295 v 410 - that is 115 more pax - i.e.. 38%
Fuel (your numbers) 105 v 165 - 60Kg/min more - i.e. 59%
Cargo mass (not volume - the 340 takes more) - i.e. 50%

I don't know the prize for the 340. I do not know if it is much more
expensive than the 330 which is prized at about 100 million US$.
Nevertheless, you burn almost 60 percent more fuel, get about 40% more pax
and 50% more weight but significantly less volume. You possibly even have to
pay significantly more to begin with. Add to this that you would expect
these numbers to come out significantly better due to the improvements to be
gained by scale - something that should "pay" for the loss of flexibility
that you will have to suffer having one big plane rather than two smaller
ones. So being bigger than the 340 it is not good enough for the 747 to be
just as good on a seat/mile basis. It must be significantly better! Your
very own numbers prove that it is not.

If I was a bean counter..

Nik.


  #26  
Old May 25th, 2004, 07:42 PM
des_frites_encore_des_frites
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Boeing's possible answer to A380: B747A

"Nik" wrote in message ...
"des_frites_encore_des_frites" wrote in message
om...
"Nik" wrote in message

...
"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.


I guess you'll be disappointed to learn that the 744 is still a very
fuel efficient aircraft.
If you compare it to the A343, at FL 350, flying at 865 km/h, an A343
weighing 200T burns about 105 kg of fuel per min whereas a 744 flying
at 910 km/h weighing 300T burns about 165 kg of fuel per min.
The 744 carries about 55% more passengers than the A343, has a 50%
greater payload (hence cargo capacity by weight) and burns about 55%
more than the A343.
They both have about the same fuel efficiency per passenger carried
despite the 744 flying faster.


Well well

Passengers 295 v 410 - that is 115 more pax - i.e.. 38%
Fuel (your numbers) 105 v 165 - 60Kg/min more - i.e. 59%
Cargo mass (not volume - the 340 takes more) - i.e. 50%

I don't know the prize for the 340. I do not know if it is much more
expensive than the 330 which is prized at about 100 million US$.
Nevertheless, you burn almost 60 percent more fuel, get about 40% more pax
and 50% more weight but significantly less volume. You possibly even have to
pay significantly more to begin with. Add to this that you would expect
these numbers to come out significantly better due to the improvements to be
gained by scale - something that should "pay" for the loss of flexibility
that you will have to suffer having one big plane rather than two smaller
ones. So being bigger than the 340 it is not good enough for the 747 to be
just as good on a seat/mile basis. It must be significantly better! Your
very own numbers prove that it is not.

If I was a bean counter..

Nik.


Your numbers are, again, incorrect.
For the pax count, the 747 seating cabin area is 55% greater so pax
count is at least 55 % greater. However, because the shape of the 747
cabin is more efficient, you can actually have about 60-65 % more pax
in the 744 than in the A343.
Airbus seat count is always based on a higher density than Boeing
hence you need to adjust the Airbus or Boeing seat count to have a
meaningful comparison.
Pax count: 60% more for the 744.

Fuel efficiency: the numbers given are the cruise stage of the flight.
Unfortunately, the A340 will take much longer to climb, stage of the
flight that is very fuel inefficient. While the 744 is already
cruising and sipping fuel, the A343 is still climbing and burning
almost 50% more fuel than the 744 already in cruise. (the 744 climbs
almost twice as quickly)
The actual A340 fuel burn advantage is much less than the 60% you get
in cruise (and keep in mind the 744 higher speed )

Cargo capacity: check the Airbus/Boeing website: the 744 has a
slightly a larger volume under floor than the A343.

No if you keep saying than the A343 is more efficient than the 744,
here is link showing how the A343 and 744 do with Air France:

http://www.airfrance-finance.com/upl...evelopment.pdf

Slide 16 shows that the 744 is 6% more efficient than the A343.

And I won't even get into the reliability figures of the A343 !!
  #27  
Old May 27th, 2004, 09:13 AM
Nik
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Boeing's possible answer to A380: B747A


"des_frites_encore_des_frites" wrote in message
om...

No if you keep saying than the A343 is more efficient than the 744,
here is link showing how the A343 and 744 do with Air France:


http://www.airfrance-finance.com/upl.../Part%202%20-%
20Fleet%20Development.pdf

Slide 16 shows that the 744 is 6% more efficient than the A343.

And I won't even get into the reliability figures of the A343 !!


Don't mention reliability of the 747 either......

Well according to the Air France site, the 747 is about 6% more fuel
efficient than the 340 on a seat mile basis (which doesn't match you numbers
anyway - nevertheless, lts just use these numbers for the sake of the
argument as even they do prove my point indeed) with the later being a mid
sized and the former a large sized airliner. Interestingly, the 777 is about
8% more fuel efficient than the 747 (and not much smaller 416 v 368). Taken
into account the premium of scale that you should have expected from the
747, you should expect the 747 to be about 10 to 12 percent more efficient
than it actually is. The 6% the 340 (295 seats) is less efficient in fuel
than the 747 is possibly more than compensated for by the fact that having
more 340 would allow for a much more flexible use of assets.

Interesting also that Air France is going to phase out their 747's...

Wonder why!!!!

They are going to have 380's though. So it is not due to Boeing's much
cherished de-frag theory.
The reasons seems obvious: The 747 has turned into a flying Dino. Its time
has passed. Boeing has nothing to replace it. Before the 7E7 is ever going
to be finished, the 747 has for a long time not been selling and the 737 is
straight don the drain as well.

Neeh - the de-frag takes place because the 747 is to old by now and has long
been over-due for a replacement.



Nik.


  #28  
Old May 27th, 2004, 02:04 PM
Not the Karl Orff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Boeing's possible answer to A380: B747A

In article ,
"Nik" wrote:

"des_frites_encore_des_frites" wrote in message
om...

No if you keep saying than the A343 is more efficient than the 744,
here is link showing how the A343 and 744 do with Air France:


http://www.airfrance-finance.com/upl.../Part%202%20-%
20Fleet%20Development.pdf

Slide 16 shows that the 744 is 6% more efficient than the A343.

And I won't even get into the reliability figures of the A343 !!


Don't mention reliability of the 747 either......

Well according to the Air France site, the 747 is about 6% more fuel
efficient than the 340 on a seat mile basis (which doesn't match you numbers
anyway - nevertheless, lts just use these numbers for the sake of the
argument as even they do prove my point indeed) with the later being a mid
sized and the former a large sized airliner. Interestingly, the 777 is about
8% more fuel efficient than the 747 (and not much smaller 416 v 368). Taken


Which version? The -300ER was stll on teh drawing boards when that
presentation was made (mid 2000). AF also did not have the most
powerful GE90-powered -200ER at that time, IIRC

into account the premium of scale that you should have expected from the
747, you should expect the 747 to be about 10 to 12 percent more efficient
than it actually is. The 6% the 340 (295 seats) is less efficient in fuel
than the 747 is possibly more than compensated for by the fact that having
more 340 would allow for a much more flexible use of assets.


Which is the exact argument made against the A380.....

Interesting also that Air France is going to phase out their 747's...

Wonder why!!!!

They are going to have 380's though. So it is not due to Boeing's much
cherished de-frag theory.
The reasons seems obvious: The 747 has turned into a flying Dino. Its time
has passed. Boeing has nothing to replace it. Before the 7E7 is ever going
to be finished, the 747 has for a long time not been selling and the 737 is
straight don the drain as well.

Neeh - the de-frag takes place because the 747 is to old by now and has long
been over-due for a replacement.



Nik.


  #29  
Old May 27th, 2004, 03:09 PM
devil
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Boeing's possible answer to A380: B747A

On Thu, 27 May 2004 16:13:58 +0800, Nik wrote:


Well according to the Air France site, the 747 is about 6% more fuel
efficient than the 340 on a seat mile basis (which doesn't match you numbers
anyway - nevertheless, lts just use these numbers for the sake of the
argument as even they do prove my point indeed) with the later being a mid
sized and the former a large sized airliner.


Of course, in both cases, these figures must be assuming a full load.

With an average operational load, surely the figures will invert?

Interestingly, the 777 is about
8% more fuel efficient than the 747 (and not much smaller 416 v 368).


Newer design. Kind of interesting that it would make it roughly 15% more
efficient than the 340 though. True that it's somewhat bigger, but
still, they are roughly the same size and same generation. It really
means that, although it's bigger, you can operate it with the same load as
a 340, for cheaper. Add to that the extra costs associated with four
engines...

I wonder where the 330 fits in this?


Interesting also that Air France is going to phase out their 747's...

Wonder why!!!!


Big, old, inefficient.

They are going to have 380's though. So it is not due to Boeing's much
cherished de-frag theory.


Perhaps for the wrong reasons? Perhaps they have no real need for it
either, but it's just that politically they can't afford not to get a
couple, as a matter of national pride/politics/the status thing? Did you
say dinos?

The reasons seems obvious: The 747 has turned into a flying Dino. Its
time has passed. Boeing has nothing to replace it. Before the 7E7 is
ever going to be finished, the 747 has for a long time not been selling
and the 737 is straight don the drain as well.


Boeing has the 777, which has largely been picked as the replacement for
the 747 by many airlines, including AF. Sure it's somewhat smaller and
shorter, but there will be newer versions, and smaller is by and large
what the doctor ordered.

Neeh - the de-frag takes place because the 747 is to old by now and has
long been over-due for a replacement.


Too old, sure; the wing is still by and large the original 1960s design.
But also too big, and also four-engined, hence expensive and less reliable.

OTOH, they'll do fine with the 777 at the high end, and possibly the 7E7
at the lower end, where growth may well end up being.


  #30  
Old May 27th, 2004, 03:32 PM
Nik
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Boeing's possible answer to A380: B747A


"Not the Karl Orff" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Nik" wrote:

"des_frites_encore_des_frites" wrote in

message
om...

No if you keep saying than the A343 is more efficient than the 744,
here is link showing how the A343 and 744 do with Air France:



http://www.airfrance-finance.com/upl.../Part%202%20-%
20Fleet%20Development.pdf

Slide 16 shows that the 744 is 6% more efficient than the A343.

And I won't even get into the reliability figures of the A343 !!


Don't mention reliability of the 747 either......

Well according to the Air France site, the 747 is about 6% more fuel
efficient than the 340 on a seat mile basis (which doesn't match you

numbers
anyway - nevertheless, lts just use these numbers for the sake of the
argument as even they do prove my point indeed) with the later being a

mid
sized and the former a large sized airliner. Interestingly, the 777 is

about
8% more fuel efficient than the 747 (and not much smaller 416 v 368).

Taken

Which version? The -300ER was stll on teh drawing boards when that
presentation was made (mid 2000). AF also did not have the most
powerful GE90-powered -200ER at that time, IIRC



Can't tell - I simply (as I said) used the AF numbers as they were for the
sake of the argument. Perhaps developments since have changed the numbers
somewhat. But do you believe that they have been changed so much that a
significantly different conclusion must be reached.


into account the premium of scale that you should have expected from the
747, you should expect the 747 to be about 10 to 12 percent more

efficient
than it actually is. The 6% the 340 (295 seats) is less efficient in

fuel
than the 747 is possibly more than compensated for by the fact that

having
more 340 would allow for a much more flexible use of assets.


Which is the exact argument made against the A380.....


Yeps - that's my argument too - only that I will argue that if the A380
prove to become much more fuel and operational efficient, it will make a
strong business case. The 747 seems appalling. On a per seat mileage basis
it should be a little better than the 777. The A380 must on the same measure
be (relative to size) that much better than the 777 is better than the 340.

Nik.




 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 05:28 PM
Qatar Airways orders A380 and A340-600 taqai Air travel 1 December 10th, 2003 06:45 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 TravelBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.