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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |