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-----

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-----

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.

"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

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++==--

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.

"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

"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...

"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.

"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.