Boeing Launches New 747-8 Family-- Cargolux and Nippon Cargo to buy up to 34 aircraft

Boeing.com ^ | Nov. 14, 2005 | Staff

[Prophet in the wilderness]

Here is a very telling sign:

" Willie Walsh, the chief executive of British Airways, delivered a snub to Airbus yesterday by saying there were "big question marks" over its A380 superjumbo and indicating the airline was potentially interested in buying the stretched Boeing 747 about to be launched by its rival. "

I was wondering ? from this article, it says that BA can " exchange " some 747-400 for new 747-800, does that mean they were leased ? or will Boeing lease them back, or buy them back, and convert them to cargo planes ?
Boeing can still find a market were they can sell some used 747-400 converted to cargo versions.
( from the Independent Online article: BA chief hints he may buy new Boeing, not Airbus ) " BA has 57 Boeing 747-400s in its fleet, the oldest of which is 16 years. They seat 413 passengers in a standard three-class configuration. It is considering exchanging some for the new 747 Advanced, which will have an extra 30-40 seats. "

[Prophet in the wilderness]

Boeing only needs 125 orders of the 747-800 pax or cargo to surpass the A-380

[Yo-Yo]

[Prophet in the wilderness]

Yes.. and not only that, they already had a slight version of the 747-800 in the 747-400XQLR .... but, it was not a stretched version, and it didn't have some of the 787 tech in it.
Boeing has had a few derivatives in study for years now, including the 747-X planes ( one of them would have been as big as the A380, with a totally new wing ).
And the studies from the 787 also gave Boeing the advantage to incorporate the tech into the new 747-800.
The thing about the 747-800 is that it will be the best replacement plane for the old 747-400 ( and that is a huge market to replace all of those 747-400s if the airlines chose to do so )... and Boeing is doing this derivative with the least cost possible ( that is to say, cost, as in risk, and capital, but, not in quality and innovation ).

[Prophet in the wilderness]

You forgot the bowling ally that AirBus promised.
Imagine that ? trying to have a game at the bowling ally, and the plane makes a right banking turn.

[Prophet in the wilderness]

" Meanwhile, back at the Airbag ranch I wonder if "cashflow" is getting to be a problem? " .....

Airbus is going to have to ask the EU for more money down the drain.
Their economies are really in bad shape now, and for Airbus to go to the EU for more money is going to put a strain on their economies.

[lowbuck]

Today, Flight International (www.flightinternational.com) had an article about how tight the market for new and used (including converted) wide body freighter is.

Seems that some of the "cargo only" carriers are having to step up to new aircraft. Yet some more positive news for Boeing.

[Prophet in the wilderness]

You know what this means ? this could possibly open the door wide open for 747-800 orders.
I guess cargo airlines, and pax airlines will sell, trade in, or lease back the old 747-400s, and those old 747-400s pax versions will be converted to cargo to airlines who can't afford the new 747-800, and this will open the door for many 747-800 orders.
Maybe we will soon ( in the next year ) see orders for the 747-800 surpass the A-380 in the next year.

[lowbuck]

There is an old saying about the EU. . . "That's it's a French project financed by the Germans".

However, Germany is bust and France is not much better off. Together with the WTO complaint the low cost (free if you don't make a profit) government loans may not emerge.

Can you say, Bye, Bye 350!!

[Turbopilot]

If it's a coordinated turn the normal force will still be perpendicular to the floor...I'd be much more worried about turbulence, although a shaking lane might actually improve my score :-p

[Paleo Conservative]

I know we got the official news today, but, was it's yesterday at corporate headquarters that the launch of the 747 - 800 announced ?

It was close to midnight in Seattle when it was anounced. It obviously wasn't timed for the US news cycle. I think it was announced in London.

[phantomworker]

Breaking News!!! The SPEEA Engineers got a terrific contract! It is recommended to accept the contract. Way to go! No strike anticipated!

[COEXERJ145]

He he, I remember Airbus saying Boeing wasn't going to launch a large aircraft (747 size or bigger) since the A380 already dominated the market.

[Prophet in the wilderness]

I am going to make a guess that we see the new 747-800 surpass the A-380 in orders from launch in a year.
The A-380 only has about 159 firm orders since launch, and the new 747-800 has 34 firm orders as of now.
That means, Boeing will have to get 125 firm orders of the new 747-800 to surpass the Airbus A-380 since launch of both aircrafts.

[Paleo Conservative]

Here are some more images of the 747-8.

">

[magellan]

In addition, how difficult would it be for the engineers at Boeing to extend that upper deck all the way back to the tail ...

... from what I've read, the hump is optimally placed in front of the wings. If it were moved back farther, it would increase drag.

This is correct. In the early 1980s Boeing looked into a full-length upper deck, but the drag was too high.

The reason for this is something called "The Area Rule". It regards something called "form" or "bluff" drag. Think of slicing the airplane into sectional views. If you can keep these sections at a constant area (which means a skinnier fuselage where the wings attach), the drag is reduced. This is why some 1960s era fighter jets had a "wasp waist". This is a factor for high subsonic speeds. On most airliners, which have a constant fuselage cross-section, this is hard to do. You see it more on large military cargo aircraft like the C-5, C-17, and the big Russian planes.

As for the "guppy-ized" 747, in the case of oversized cargo, you just have to throw the rulebook out.

BTW, I am not an aerospace engineer, but I do have an aerospace engineering degree.

[magellan]

Ok, so this means the same flight with the new airplane costs 22 percent less than the A380, but if the A380 carries 22+% (not saying thats the case, just speculating) more than this plane, doesn't that even out or even help the A380 beat it on a per pound basis?

Exactly right. And the Airbus A380 carries exactly 22% more passenger than the 747-8 (550 vs. 450, normal 3-class configuration).

So the planes are dead even in operating cost per passenger.

But, if the route will only support 450 passengers, the 747-8 wins.

Other factors are flexibility. The 747-8 can go to more airports. It can also be used on routes between smaller cities which don't demand an A380.

I think the 747-8 passenger version will mostly be sold to customers who need a large long-range airplane, but don't want to risk something as large as a A380 flying 1/3 empty.

But Boeing's real long-range powerhouse is the 777-300ER. It carries 365 passengers 7,880 miles.

[ccmay]

Airbus developed the A380 (as well as their other jets) using funds loaned at sweetheart rates from the European governments that are the majority owners of EADS, the parent company of Airbus.

It makes victory all the sweeter when a private American company not only kicks a foreign company's ass, but the asses of its socialist government backers too.

Go Boeing! Crush Airbeast!

-ccm