Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

B747-8 no future oders?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    ^EK does not have 763ERs. The smallest aircraft it has are the the 332s if I'm correct.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by LH-B744 View Post
      The 763ERs are well known here, But I can't say much about the 767-400ER. (...)

      But - imho - only one or two airlines are using the 763ER here.
      So why is this? - I don't have a clue.(...)
      Current operators of 767-300ERs into Düsseldorf (as far as I know): Delta, British Airways, probably Condor
      Former operators of the 767-300ER: LTU, American
      Who did I miss?

      Originally posted by LH-B744 View Post
      (...)
      Why is EK using the 777-300 here, and not a 767-300? Do they need 350 seats when they come to EDDL? (...)
      Emirates definitely needs the seats out of Düsseldorf. If they didn't, they would still fly their A333s on the route to Dubai, like they used to do just a few years ago.

      Originally posted by LH-B744 View Post
      (...)One thing that I know at least is, a 773 is not able to perform the t/o at EDDL @ MTOW.

      So, probably the EK route via EDDL is so convenient (or short?), that EK 773s don't need 11,100 ft tora, which they indeed need with MTOW(...).
      The route from Düsseldorf to Dubai is indeed quite short, even for a 777-300, but most definitely for the 777-300ER. So with not so much fuel loaded, I assume, they can take on a full load of passengers and cargo and still be below the MTOW.

      Originally posted by LH-B744 View Post
      (...)Another example.
      In August 012, LH is using the 340-300 here to cross the pond and not the 747. The official explanation is, EDDL is not ready to handle the 330 passengers that are leaving a LH-B744 at once. (...)
      I wonder who gave that "official" explanation. Düsseldorf is more than ready to handle the 747. In the 1980s, JAL used 747s out of EDDL to Tokyo. The issue with the Lufthansa A340s is that these aircraft have the right size for the market in EDDL. 744s to North American destinations wouldn't be full, especially with the Air Berlin competition on some of these routes.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Peter Kesternich View Post
        Well - the inner structure might be the same, but the aerodynamical aspects changed considerably, including the wingtips, the profile and the flap system and therefore I think it IS a new wing.
        The inner structure is the same, but it IS a new wing?... and ALL CAPS on "IS"...???

        Yep, overplayed your hand.

        Unless it's completely new, I belive the better word is "updated"

        Might be significantly updated, but as Gabrield said, significantly can, unfortunately, be very subjective.
        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Taliesin View Post
          Originally posted by Gabriel
          But I have a doubt: Boeing claimed that the 747-8 had not only a much better per-trip cost than the A380 (which is expectable because it can take fewer passengers) but even had a slightly better per-seat-mile cost. Was Boeing able to deliver on that promise?

          On the first: maybe. On the second: No.
          Originally posted by Boeing
          The 747-8 Intercontinental is more than 10 percent lighter per seat than the Airbus A380 and consumes 11 percent less fuel per passenger. That translates into a trip-cost reduction of 21 percent and a seat-mile cost reduction of more than 6 percent compared to the A380.
          Retrieved today from http://www.boeing.com/commercial/747...ackground.html

          Isn't there legal implication about saying false statements like that one? Deceptive advertising or something? It's not as if that was a forward-looking statement.

          --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
          --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
            Retrieved today from http://www.boeing.com/commercial/747...ackground.html

            Isn't there legal implication about saying false statements like that one? Deceptive advertising or something? It's not as if that was a forward-looking statement.
            If that were true, the A380 would be dead. Not a few sales here and there, but zero sales. And the 747-8I would pick up all the A380 sales, because it's the best game in town. The opposite is true. The 747-8I sold in very small numbers to carriers trying to rightsize their fleet or carriers looking for better cargo capacity.
            Boeing probably found a small patch of routes for which that statement is true. It certainly isnt true for the other 95%.

            A380 sales arent stellar, but she still beats the 747-8I 7:1. If that isnt telling enough in and of itself, I dont know what is.

            Comment


            • #21
              I think this whole discussion brings to mind something that airlines are noticing, especially those who have been around for 3/4 of a century... people don't fly as much as they used to.

              Sure more people are flying, but think about it this way. Imagine your favorite airport, you can't tell me the every single airline that has served it in history that still exists still serves it today. i.e. Toronto used to have flights with Aerolinease Argentineas, but now it doesn't.

              Airlines are, for whatever reason, stacking congested routes with more and more flights on aircraft like the E190 instead of reducing frequency and increasing capacity.

              It probably makes more economic sense for airlines to do this. On a route that flies 20/30 flights a day with full aircraft that are smaller, why cut half those flights and replace them with a larger plane when, in the end, the larger plane won't be as full.

              That also puts convenience into question. Your airlines used to have 20 flights a day, packed full, but now you only have 5 and they utilize a huge airplane. While your competitor has 20 flights and has already taken your spots. Your customers will go to them because they have more flights and that makes it more flexible.

              The A380, and the first 747 was meant to do this, relieve congestion at airports by replacing tones of smaller planes with one big one. But unless every company does this at once, it will never work
              I'm the guy... Porter Guy

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                The inner structure is the same, but it IS a new wing?... and ALL CAPS on "IS"...???

                Yep, overplayed your hand.

                Unless it's completely new, I belive the better word is "updated"

                Might be significantly updated, but as Gabrield said, significantly can, unfortunately, be very subjective.
                Well, 3WE, you took my quote a bit out of context, beecause the caps were in response to a previous exchange.

                And before this discussion about "new" or "not new" continues, I would like to clarify a few things: In my opinion, the important aspects of a wing are its aerodynamic properties because that is it's purpose - being aerodynamically well-designed to provide lift. If the airfoil, flaps and wingtips are newly designed and then grafted on an existing inner structure, to me this is still a new wing.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Taliesin View Post
                  (...)

                  A380 sales arent stellar, but she still beats the 747-8I 7:1. If that isnt telling enough in and of itself, I dont know what is.
                  Well - both the A380 and the 747-8I don't sell well. I am certain we can all agree on that. However the 7:1 ratio in favor if the A380 you just established doesn't take into account that the A380 is on the market quite a bit longer than the 747-8I is. You could counter that the A380 was doing far better sales-wise than the 747-8I at the same point in its production history. The important aspect to me, hwever, is: when will Airbus and Boeing make money selling their product. And here's where I believe Airbus and Boeing are at least on equal footing (with maybe even an advantage for Boeing) because the development cost for the 747-8I was significantly lower than for the A380.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Peter Kesternich View Post
                    In my opinion, the important aspects of a wing are its aerodynamic properties because that is it's purpose - being aerodynamically well-designed to provide lift. If the airfoil, flaps and wingtips are newly designed and then grafted on an existing inner structure, to me this is still a new wing.
                    In the aeronautical institute at my university, there is a slogan on the wall: "Airplane construction means integration"
                    What that means is that you have to find a compromise between ALL disciplines, aerodynamics, structure, systems, propulsion and so on.

                    A year ago, Airbus finished a weight savings program for the A380 that shaved some 700kg out of the airplane. In the case of the 747-8, we're talking about TONS.
                    The 747-8 wing might be new aerodynamically, but it's not new structurally. The modifications are basically the engineering equivalent of a band aid. Twist and turn it anyway you want, it's showing in the sales.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Taliesin View Post
                      (...)
                      The 747-8 wing might be new aerodynamically, but it's not new structurally. (...)
                      That's something I would definitely agree with.

                      Originally posted by Taliesin View Post
                      (...)The modifications are basically the engineering equivalent of a band aid. Twist and turn it anyway you want, it's showing in the sales.
                      Hmmmmm... I'd say it's more than a bandaid...
                      A380 - launched in 2000 - orders: 257
                      747-8 - launched in 2005 - orders: 106
                      Doesn't look so bad to me

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Peter Kesternich View Post
                        Hmmmmm... I'd say it's more than a bandaid...
                        With all due respect, you dont seem educated enough in the matter to be making that determination

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Peter Kesternich View Post
                          Current operators of 767-300ERs into Düsseldorf (as far as I know): Delta, British Airways, probably Condor
                          Former operators of the 767-300ER: LTU, American
                          Who did I miss?



                          Emirates definitely needs the seats out of Düsseldorf. If they didn't, they would still fly their A333s on the route to Dubai, like they used to do just a few years ago.



                          The route from Düsseldorf to Dubai is indeed quite short, even for a 777-300, but most definitely for the 777-300ER. So with not so much fuel loaded, I assume, they can take on a full load of passengers and cargo and still be below the MTOW.



                          I wonder who gave that "official" explanation. Düsseldorf is more than ready to handle the 747. In the 1980s, JAL used 747s out of EDDL to Tokyo. The issue with the Lufthansa A340s is that these aircraft have the right size for the market in EDDL. 744s to North American destinations wouldn't be full, especially with the Air Berlin competition on some of these routes.
                          I have to disappoint you, EK has NEVER since 1985 (EK has been established in that year) used triple3s. And what's the reason for that, they simply haver never owned triple3s.
                          The only thing that I remember is EK 332s @ EDDL. But, when have you been the last time at EDDL, Mr Kesternich?

                          I have been the last time at EDDL on September 1st, 2012, and there is evidence for that by more than ten photographs.

                          One shot that I've done yesterday is the EK triple7 (EK 773, NOT 773 ER), who were waiting for their late evening departure to OMDB. And you can meet them with me, they never operated something like triple3s.

                          Why do people who come from other airports always think that they know everything about EDDL? I don't want to get angry about that, but EDDL is MY home airport, and I've never had a different home airport since 1978, including Spantax @ EDDL, LTU @ EDDL, Sabena @ EDDL (today, you can't reach Belgium via EDDL, god only knows the reason for that), and finally, the a/c that gave me the odor of kerosine, the Hugo Junkers Ju 52 up there on the observer deck.

                          This trimotor a/c has vanished from EDDL in the late 1990s with destination Switzerland. So, please trust me, I know what happens here.

                          LH is using the 340-300 to cross the pond.
                          And the LH 340-300 was also planned for the nonstop EDDL - RJAA route.

                          But RJAA is served by the daylight departure LH-A388 EDDF-RJAA. So, we at EDDL are pleased to stand back. We are pleased to serve the EDDL - EDDF - RJAA connection.

                          And, If you have ever been to EDDL, Mr Kesternich, what has been changed when you use the escalator to the Terminal B observer deck?
                          - Right, I don't have the chance to treat you to 2 mineral waters up there, they've removed the little bar café on the left side before you were approaching the Terminal B observer deck cash desk.

                          God only knows why this little café has vanished, besides the Terminal C airport restaurant..... ... So, what do you think, we don't visit them too often. So, let us improve this situation!

                          I am an old fashioned guy, I know, but these were the times when airlines existed that I've known since my early childhood, Braniff, PanAM, or, in this special case, an EDDL based company since 1955:
                          [LTU Tristar @ EDDL]
                          http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.p...7184744&nseq=0

                          I also remember travel agencies who had an illuminated LTU sign in front of their office, and also Tjaereborg travel agencies are well known here, although they don't reside @ EDDL... ... And still today, the name LTU has not vanished from all streets. They've been a legend with their tristars.
                          You better don't compare this with their replacement.

                          And finally, Mr Kesternich, you have not been present at EDDL when some talented LH pilots managed to bring the 388 to Düsseldorf (by using one complete Terminal, i.e. eight to ten average EDDL parking positions)?

                          Because these were the days when double jetways at EDDL (as required for 388_) were denied. The result of this discussion was, EDDL is not able to handle LH-B744s, although the B744 can't be compared with 388 in no dimension.

                          As a result of this discussion, I'll stick with the origin of my nickname, because I've also seen a video about what happens at KJFK when an AF 388 does not see a CRJ...
                          388s are so huge, that imho not only the 388 pilots have to pass a test which prepares them for 80 metres wingspan, which has never been reached before (748i included).
                          But also ALL pilots who could ever meet a 380 on ground should've to pass that test! Thus, imho at least ALL pilots who could've ever be in duty to use EDDF, YSSY (Kingsford-Smith), LFPG, KJFK, RJAA, OMDB and FAJS airports must have to pass this test.
                          Of course, this includes all 748i, B744ER and B744 pilots...

                          [So, what happens when a 748i meets a 388 on two nearby twys? Well, you'll better give at least a 150x80 metre box to the pilots, and this just only for the moment of closest encounter (12000 m²). And now you can compare that to your private garden.. Or you are relieved how big some airports are.]
                          Last edited by LH-B744; 2012-09-02, 02:47. Reason: Who is the expert for EDDK? So, leave EDDL and EDDF for me.
                          The German long haul is alive, 65 years and still kicking.
                          The Gold Member in the 747 club, 50 years since the first LH 747.
                          And constantly advanced, 744 and 748 /w upper and lower EICAS.
                          This is Lohausen International airport speaking, echo delta delta lima.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Peter Kesternich View Post
                            Well - both the A380 and the 747-8I don't sell well. I am certain we can all agree on that. However the 7:1 ratio in favor if the A380 you just established doesn't take into account that the A380 is on the market quite a bit longer than the 747-8I is. You could counter that the A380 was doing far better sales-wise than the 747-8I at the same point in its production history. The important aspect to me, hwever, is: when will Airbus and Boeing make money selling their product. And here's where I believe Airbus and Boeing are at least on equal footing (with maybe even an advantage for Boeing) because the development cost for the 747-8I was significantly lower than for the A380.
                            IIRC after the initial flush of orders. Boeing found sales to be extremely slow for the first 7 or so years of the 747's life. The global recession isn't helping (paralells with the oil crisis of the 70's the stuffed growth back then) - my guess is in 10 years time the growth variants of the superjumbo's will be selling well.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Taliesin View Post
                              With all due respect, you dont seem educated enough in the matter to be making that determination
                              With all due respect, you know nothing about my qualifications. Your "bandaid"-remark wasn't exactly a qualified comment and that's what I expressed in my forum entry.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by SYDCBRWOD View Post
                                IIRC after the initial flush of orders. Boeing found sales to be extremely slow for the first 7 or so years of the 747's life. The global recession isn't helping (paralells with the oil crisis of the 70's the stuffed growth back then) - my guess is in 10 years time the growth variants of the superjumbo's will be selling well.
                                Well, the 1970s were very different times. Currently, there are no growth variants of any of the superjumbos - whether Airbus or Boeing - for sale, and we'lll have to sit back and wait how things develop there. In my opinion, the market for these very big aircraft is rather limited. Don't get me wrong: I'd love to see the A380 succeed economically (for Airbus), after all it's my tax money that will pick up the pieces if it doesn't But I am really not too optimistic about it.
                                Last edited by Peter Kesternich; 2012-09-02, 18:55.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X