Skip to comments.Boeing 747-8 vs A380: A titanic tussle
Posted on 02/15/2006 3:43:53 PM PST by Paleo Conservative
What is the better option – the Airbus A380 or the Boeing 747-8? We consider the two giants’ pros and cons as the airframers square up at Asian Aerospace
© Flight International
The Boeing 747-8 (back) and the Airbus A380 (front). Which is the better option for airlines?
With Asia set to be a key driver of ultra-large-aircraft demand, Airbus and Boeing will be using next week’s Asian Aerospace as the ideal showcase for their offerings. Until the emergence of Boeing’s 747-8 as a firm programme last year, Airbus had the 400-plus-seat market all to itself with its 550-seat A380, but now faces a serious challenge in both the passenger and freighter sectors from the 450-seat 747-8, so expect the two sides to exchange blows as they explain why their offering is the right solution for the world’s congested passenger and freight routes.
The 747-8 family was launched in November as a major derivative of the 747-400, on the back of 34 orders from cargo carriers Cargolux and Nippon Cargo Airlines. Powered by a bleed-enabled version of the 787’s General Electric GEnx, the new family incorporates a slight stretch, increased weights, revised wing with raked wingtips and upgrades to the cabin and flightdeck. Compared with the 747-400, the changes provide the 747-8 Intercontinental passenger model with 34 more seats in a three-class layout (to 450 seats), increased range – to 14,800km (8,000nm) – and improved efficiency, with a 16% lower fuel burn per seat and 8% lower operating cost per seat. The -8 Freighter provides 16% more revenue volume than the 747-400ERF, while revenue payload increases by almost 20% to 133.9t (294,900lb).
Although all orders so far have been for the cargo model, Boeing is confident it will also garner sales for the 747-8I passenger version, which plugs the “200-seat gap” between the A380 and large widebodies like the A340-600, 777-300ER and 747-400. Boeing believes this gap is wide enough to enable it to penetrate the existing A380 customer base with the new 747, and lists 39 “candidate customers” (including passenger and freight divisions of airlines). Almost all these carriers are existing 747 operators, and 12 are airlines or cargo carriers that have already ordered the A380. The list of potential customers include 21 Asian carriers/cargo airlines (see table), and Boeing is convinced it has a good chance of picking off some A380 customers.
Airbus appears undisturbed by the arrival of competition from Seattle, dismissing it as nothing more than a warmed-over 747. “Boeing is stretching a 40-year-old design to the limit,” says director of product marketing A380, Richard Carcaillet.
“The new model enters service 40 years after the 747-100, and has the same old wing, same old cockpit as the -400, and same old cabin – there is no improvement from the 1960s comfort standard,” says Carcaillet. “There is no development potential, and no engine choice,” he adds.
Boeing obviously has a slightly different take on the 747 legacy. Randy Baseler, Boeing Commercial Airplanes vice-president, marketing, believes the connections to the 747 give the new model an important commonality advantage with the in-service fleet. He also says that the derivative design has not compromised the 747-8’s efficiency. “If you look at the efficiency measures of aircraft design, we’ve an advantage over the A380 despite being a derivative,” he says, pointing to the later generation engines and claimed lower empty weight per seat of the 747-8 compared to its Airbus rival. These factors mean that the 747-8I burns 13% less fuel per seat than the A380, he says (see table).
While acknowledging that the A380’s all-new wing – versus a modified version of the 747-400’s on the -8 – gives it an aerodynamic advantage, Baseler says that in other measures it is advantage Boeing.
“The A380 is between 10% and 16% per seat heavier than the 747-8. The 747-8’s OEW [operating empty weight] per seat is 453kg [998lb] compared with 498kg per seat [using Airbus’s brochure weight numbers] for the A380,” says Baseler. He says Boeing calculates the A380 is over 20% heavier per seat than the 747-400, and to match its structural efficiency “the A380 needs to be stretched to over 650 seats”.
The net result of these efficiencies is that the 747-8I’s operating costs are 22% lower than the A380’s per trip and 6% lower per seat, says Baseler.
However, Carcaillet claims that the 747-8 will be faster on approach – 160kt (296km/h) vs 138kt for the A380 – and despite a 20% higher thrust-to-weight ratio it will be a poor climber, as unlike the A380 it will require a one-step climb to FL330 (33,000ft/10,100m). He says that the new Boeing can only be made to “look good by bending the facts” with the claims based on “a gross exaggeration of the A380’s weight and fuel burn. The reality is that the A380’s fuel burn per seat is 2% lower than the 747-8’s. The 747-8’s cost per trip is just 12% lower than the A380’s, while the cost per seat is 9% higher – the A380 is still the most fuel-efficient large widebody ever.”
Wherever the truth lies within these operating cost claims, few would dispute Airbus’s view that the all-new A380 design with its double widebody-deck configuration will provide airlines with “game-changing” opportunities. “The A380 has 35% more capacity than the 747-400, and a 21st century seat width [18.5in/47cm],” says Carcaillet (see graphic). “The 747-8I provides just an 8% increase in capacity – this is less than two years’ growth – has 40% less floor space than the A380 and a seat width from the 1970s [17.2in].”
But Baseler expects the relatively small size increase of the 747-8 will play to Boeing’s advantage. “The 747-8 is the only airliner in the 400- to 500-seat category, and here our operating cost advantage offers a significant improvement over the A380,” he says. “But if you really need a 550-seater, then you’ll need the A380 as the revenue from the additional passengers outweighs the seat-mile cost advantage of the 747-8. That’s why we forecast a market for 300 aircraft in that [500-seat plus] category over the next 20 years.”
Boeing says the fact that the -8 is smaller than the A380 and has commonality with the current 747 fleet makes it a “significantly lower market risk” as it can use “existing infrastructure and ground equipment at more than 210 airports worldwide”, but Airbus believes 747-8 operators could find things otherwise. “With its 68.5m wingspan, the 747-8 is a Code F aircraft [airport handling classification] like the A380,” says Carcaillet, adding that the span limit for Code E (the 747-400’s class), is 65m.
Taking the lead
“This means the 747-8 has to meet the same requirements as the A380,” he says, “more perhaps as it has the same number of wheels as the 747-400, but increased weight, so it will have a very high ACN,” (Aircraft Classification Number, which measures the load footprint on a runway).
But arguments about the pros and cons of the 747-8I and the A380-800 are academic at the moment, as Boeing has yet to sell a passenger model. This is a point Airbus chief operating officer customers John Leahy is quick to make, and he is unconvinced that his rival will manage to break out from the freight market. “Our competitor sold a few 747-8 freighters. This’ll be the first time in the history of aviation that anyone has made a successful programme out of just freighters,” he says.
But Baseler says that, while Boeing has the “option to do the -8 programme as a freighter only”, he is confident the first orders for the 747-8I passenger model are close. “We expect we will have some orders for the -8I this year,” he says.
Airbus's view of the A380 and 747 comparison
Boeing points out that, despite the lack of success so far with the 747-8 passenger model, the freighter outsold its Airbus rival handsomely last year. The manufacturer claims that, although it gives away around 18t in payload to its rival and has less cargo volume, the 747-8F has a 15% lower operating cost per tonne over the A380, and a 20% lower trip cost.
An important carry-over from the existing 747Fs, which has appeal to the general cargo operators, is the upward hinging nose cargo door that allows outsize loads to be carried. Boeing also highlights the fact that the new 747 can slot into existing 747-400F schedules, as it uses existing 747 cargo-handling equipment, whereas the A380 requires a unique high-loader to access its upper deck, which will make it difficult to operate “off route”.
Airbus’s Carcaillet says the huge cost advantages Boeing claims for the 747-8F are again due to “gross exaggeration” of the A380’s fuel burn and weight – the latter to the tune of 13t. “The reality is that the A380F’s cost per tonne is comparable to that of the 747-8 on short ranges,” he says, adding that “comparisons at short range ignore the unique non-stop range of the A380F”. He says that on long-range flights with maximum structural payload, the A380F’s cost per tonne is 15% lower.
Airbus has conceded that, while it does not see the 747-8I as a threat, the freighter could dilute the A380’s sales in the cargo sector, but believes an airliner programme cannot have a solid business case built purely around cargo demand. “Of course the 747 is a good a freighter – all they’re selling are freighters,” says Leahy. “But you can’t make an aircraft programme around an aircraft that is just a freighter. If you want a balanced aircraft programme like we have with the A380 you will sell probably about three-quarters of your models as passenger aircraft and the rest as freighters.”
Express package carriers have ordered the bulk of the A380Fs to date, while the 747-8F was launched by two general cargo airlines, which Boeing says indicates the Airbus freighter’s configuration is suited to carrying the heavier, higher-density loads normally associated with general freight carriage. But Carcaillet disputes this: “The A380F will fly 150t non-stop, whatever the density,” he says. “At a similar range, according to Boeing, the 747-8F will carry 113t only, which is less than today’s 747-400ERF with a stop.”
Given Boeing’s long-standing pessimism about the size of the ultra-large-aircraft market, Airbus could be forgiven for mocking the fact that its rival has now apparently “seen the light”. Shortly after the 747-8 programme was launched last year, Airbus chief executive Gustav Humbert congratulated his rival “for following the Airbus market view on large-aircraft demand”.
The fact is that Boeing has consistently in recent years been pessimistic about the market for aircraft in the 500-seat-plus category – the A380’s bracket – where its 20-year forecast is currently put at 300 passenger aircraft. In comparison, Airbus has continued to be firm in the belief that 20-year demand for ultra-large aircraft (450-seats plus) is in excess of 1,000 aircraft – its latest forecast putting demand at 1,250 aircraft (excluding freighters).
However, Boeing’s long-term forecast for overall demand in the “747 and larger” sector (400-seat-plus passenger aircraft and large freighters) has varied dramatically over the last decade from a high of 1,600 in 1996, when it was poised to launch a 550-seat 747 stretch family, to a low of 790 in 2004. Significantly, last year Boeing bucked the recent trend by increasing its forecast (by 15%) to 907 units as it prepared the ground for the 747-8 launch, having consistently reduced its outlook each year in the period 2001-4.
“Airbus’s ultra-large-aircraft forecast is consistent, Boeing’s follows every twist and turn,” says Carcaillet.
Boeing’s decision to finally join its rival in the ultra-large-aircraft sector has livened up the proceedings, after Airbus had things its own way for five years. It will be another five years at least until it becomes clear who has got it right, but one thing is for certain – the airlines at last have what they always wanted and that is a choice of supplier at the top end of the size spectrum.
MAX KINGSLEY-JONES / LONDON & TOULOUSE
We were trying to catch our cruise ship after missing the sailing out of San Juan.
We go to San Juan, went to the airport and found a small airline going to what ever island (I forget).
A beautiful red head sold me my $99 ticket.
She took my bags and put it on the plane.
Now time to fly, I get on the DC8 and SHE WAS THE PILOT.
We never got above 500 feet. She said we just got new engines and I don't want them to rip out of the wings.
Strange experiences we all have.
Other than no a380 deliveries, I don't know. Do tell...
I went from Nome to Port Clarence on a local carrier...I can't remember who or what type of aircraft now. Small twin engine Cessna or Beechcraft.
While we're waiting and they're weighing us and our bags, we're watching a mechanic working on the plane...pounding on something under the cowling.
He finally wipes his hands off, takes off the coveralls, walks in and asks us if we're ready. He was the pilot. I loved it...my partner was a little less enthused.
Braniff did away with yellow within a couple of years of their "end of the plain plane" ad campaign which began in October 1965. The yellow paint didn't fare too well with all the strong sunlight it got especially on Mexican and South American routes. It was only put on 707's
The 380 has its niche.
The A318/319/320/321 has been killing Boeing.
2005 sales (Air Transport World, Feb 2006, page 9)
and 235 787's
and 20 A380's
Competition is good!
Airbus produced 378 aircraft last year, Boeing produced 290.
Boeing gets its fair share of Government cheese, and a good percentage of their planes are made with foreign parts.
Wrong, there are almost no L1011 cargo planes. As far as planes still flying, ATA has 5 or 6 that they do military charters with, ThaiSky airlines has a couple of old DL planes, and a few scattered carriers have them (Kampuchea Airlines) rotting on ramps in Asia. Most of the old ATA, TWA and DL L1011's have been scrapped.
WWII changed that. Airports everywhere and tremendous strides in aircraft design. Coming out of WWII France wanted to regain his place in the aviation market so they put a lot of time and money into the largest, grandest...and most obsolate flying boats ever built. I wish I could recall the name/model.
Naturally they were grand flops; ending up their days flying caro. I think several of them ended up flying ore in South America.
That's the problem with the 380...they are big. Too big.
That is what they said about the 747.
Like I said, the A380 is a great niche plane, much like the 747SP. Instead of long thin routes, the 380 will prosper on the long heavily travelled routes. It will do very well in Asia and the Middle East. Its not a real plane for North America.
Airbus makes great planes. My airline gets the first A350, hopefully we will take it to Asia where the money is.
Eastern... I used to fly them from DC to Asuncion, Paraguay: 24 hours, with stops in Miami, Panama, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, and Paraguay, finally.
Competition finally killed this awful route. AA switched it to DC-Miami-Paraguay, or one stop in Brazil. The competition picked up, and there was real service, real price pressure on an otherwise unheard of route. Ironically or not, the exact same thing happened with deregulation in the U.S.
Oh, and when American Air picked up the pieces, they found loads of coke hidden in all kinds of places in the old Eastern airplanes.
Delta was still flying them DFW to Frankfurt as late as 1992.
and the company building them eventually went under.
And Wrong. Although the engine maker took one on the chin.
In the profits war I'm going to put my long term money on Boeing combination of the 7E7/787 and new 747. It's going to be interesting to see how it all shakes out.
I have never seen a L1011 cargo plane.
The L1011 wasn't doomed because of the EA crash. It was doomed because Lockheed had to compete against the DC-10. There was no room for both, and when Airbus came out with the widebody A300 and Boeing came out with the widebody 767 (both of which had 2 engines and a 2 person cockpig), the writing was on the wall for Lockheed.
Lockheed's only jet was the L1011, the Electra did well for a prop (one hell of a plane) but Lockheed missed the boat, they should have made a 2 engine 150 seat plane. When the L1011 was being sold, it was before the oil shock. PSA bought 2 L1011's to fly from San Diego and LA to San Fran, that only lasted about 9 months, the fuel costs were too high.
It was a good plane, but, at the wrong time, and it knocked Lockheed out of the passenger market.
7E7 will be a good plane. Not sure if Boeing will pull off the new 747. They tried to sell the same thing a few years ago and got little interest.
Embraer is the guy to watch out for, the Emb170 and Emb190 are the best plane in the A318/B717 market. 100-110 seats, much more comfortable than a regional jet and fuel stingy.
DL retired their last L1011's about 3 years ago. They used to do Hawaii with them. If you watch "Lost" the wreckage is a DL L1011.
I miss em, I flew on TWA and ATA and BWIA's Lockheeds.
They proposed a much more radical redesign with entirely new less hightly swept supercritical wings, fly-by-wire controls and new engines. This is a much more conservative update. Most of the technology updates for the 747 have been already developed for other programs. The wings have the same structural parts as the 747-400. The engines and avionics upgrades and interiors are borrowed from the 787. The wing tip concepts, landing gear and windows are borrowed from the 777. The wing control surfaces will be redesigned to be simpler and lighter.
Good idea. Keeps development costs down, doesn't stress the manufacturing lines. The product delays with the 380 won't hurt either.
You're thinking of the DC-10/MD-10/MD-11. Only 11 Tristars were ever converted to freighters. Nine additional were converted to gas passers/troop transports for the RAF.
Yes, thanks very much for the clarification.
The best L1011 is the one that Orbital Sciences has. They use it to launch sattelites while in flight. Pretty cool.
In addition to the below, I noticed a warning by India to the EU and Airbus not to criticize India's decision to go with the 787 Dreamliner.
Boeing wins $10 bln Qantas jet order
(Its Boeing, baby! Another $10B that Airbus DOESNT get)
Posted on 12/14/2005 6:46:49 AM PST by Pukin Dog
"The Qantas order will push Boeing further ahead of Airbus in 2005 order numbers. Boeing had 800 orders as of November 30, its Web site showed. Airbus had 494 as of October 31, according to its Web site, but has since won a $10 billion deal to supply 150 single-aisle aircraft to China."
"Airbuss ultra-large-aircraft forecast is consistent, Boeings follows every twist and turn," says Carcaillet.s/b, Carcaillet doesn't have any real criticisms, just abusive rhetoric used as a diversionary tactic, rather than answer the real criticisms of the A380.
They eventually got it right, and as the p-3 the basic structure is still in service, but early problems (crashes caused by wings falling off during flight) with the Electra and dealing with those kept Lockheed out of the first generation of jets. They had nothing to compete with the 707, DC-8 or 880. They tried a comeback with the 1011, but it was an uphill battle because they didn't have a family of planes to offer. If you bought Lockheed, you were going to have to also shop Boeing or Douglas, who could offer package deals with DC-9s or 727s/737s.
As for the comfort of the plane, I had originally liked them when they were new, but the last flight I took on one (1992) was miserable. There was no individual air control for each seat, and cabin air circulation was inadequate for the flight. I never flew Delta transatlantic again.
I'll yield to you on that. I don't know when they stopped flying them; I was going on the last time I personally rode in one.
I had a chance to fly on one for free a few years back on Reeve Aleutian Airlines.
Only problem is, did I really want to go to Adak Alaska? If they flew them to their Russian stops, I probably would have.
I have a buddy that used to fly them cargo around micronesia. He loved it, plus the fact that there really wasn't any other air traffic around.
I think the big blow to Airbus was Boeing's monster 777-300ER twinjet. What a beast. Damn near a 747-400ER with much better operating costs. It really killed the A340, and will rewrite the dynamics of much of long-range passenger travel.
But the next big battle is the 737/A320 replacement. And Boeing needs to get moving fast on that.
Airbus knows it got wrapped up in its own propaganda with the A380, and was caught flatfooted by Boeing with the 787. So it tosses out an A330 derivative (the A350), and uses political muscle and extreme discounting to sell enough to get a production go-ahead. But it seems clear Airbus does not intend to be caught flatfooted again.
I seriously doubt Boeing would develop such a variant. It would require major changes to the wings and other systems on the 747-8I. The whole point of the 747-8 was that it required little development beyond adapting technologies developed for other Boeing programs like the 777 and 787 to the 747. Making a very long ranged variant would require longer and strengthened wings, heavier landing gear, bigger engines, and a strengthened fuselage to carry the additional weight of more fuel. The engines may become available if Boeing builds a 787-10X stretched version. I doubt there would be much benefit to Boeing in spending the other money necessary to build such a long ranged variant of the 747 when there would be very small demand for it.
The 777-200LR shares much of its development costs with the 777-300ER and 777-200F. Those planes will probably be built in 500+ quantities over 10-20 years. It could even be more if some of the additional air force tankers are based on the 777-200F. The 747-8 freighter and intercontinental models are expected to sell 200-400 airframes over the next 20 years. I don't see how a 10,000nm ranged 747 would sell enough copies to make economic sense. Perhaps an even larger stretch of the passenger version with the same range as the 747-8I could be built using common parts, but I would still think it would not have that big a potential market compared to the development costs.
If the 777-200LR were to operate successfully on the LHR-SYD route for several years, Boeing will probably build a long ranged variant of the Y3 twin-engined replacement for the 777-300ER and 747 which will be built of materials used in the 787 and later projects.
I agree, Paleo, your reasoning makes a lot of sense. The 747-8 series derivatives seem to be more suited to freighters and demand is the key. If a customer wanted a -8 variant in sufficient quantity, that would be another story.
Martin's flying boat...only two left
Up north of Vancouver, BC. We watched one come in, then the crew took us out and gave us a tour.