Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Boeing lets fly with a jumbo sales pitch (Qantas ... 747-8 efficiency statistics)
The Australian ^ | 24 March 2006 | Steve Creedy

Posted on 03/27/2006 1:48:04 AM PST by Paleo Conservative

BOEING is pitching the new version of its legendary jumbo jet to Qantas, arguing it will beat Airbus's double decker A380 on costs per seat as well as for a total trip.

The passenger version of the Boeing 747-8 will be stretched by 3.6m and will be able to carry 34 more seats in a three-class configuration with 21 per cent more revenue cargo space than the existing 747-400.

Due to enter service in 2010, it will boost range by 1850km, give a 16 per cent lower fuel burn and 8 per cent lower costs per seat.

More importantly, Boeing says, it will also offer 6 per cent lower seat-mile costs and 29 per cent lower trip costs than the giant A380.

"We've really been able to make some significant breakthroughs in the fuel efficiency on the 747-8 - with the engines, with the aerodynamic improvements, as well as significant improvements in the operating costs," Boeing Commercial Airplanes vice-president of product development, Daniel Mooney, told a recent briefing in Sydney.

Mooney estimates that about a third of the efficiency improvements come from the 65,000lb-thrust GEnx 2B67 engines, which are based on the GEnx engines launched on the 787 Dreamliner.

The new engines use 15 per cent less fuel per seat with a 17 per cent gain in fuel per tonne. Despite being larger, the 747-8 has lower fuel consumption than the 747-400.

This translates into an improvement of about 8 per cent in operating costs over the 400.

"When we develop a heavier, bigger airplane, typically what happens is the trip costs go up but it just takes more fuel, and it's higher cost to send a bigger airplane on that trip," Mooney says.

"With the efficiencies we're getting from the 747-8, it's great to see that our trip costs have actually reduced a little bit versus the smaller 400. That's a really powerful economic improvement.

"When we compare it to the A380, our assessment is that the 747-8 will have better seat mile costs, and significantly - in the order of over 25 per cent - better trip costs."

Aerodynamic improvements and an enhanced wing are expected to contribute another third to the efficiency gain, although Boeing concedes the A380's completely new wing still has a slight advantage.

Boeing redesigned the wing to give it a state-of-art airfoil, building on the lessons learnt with the 777 and the 787, and added raked wingtips which increased the span of each wing by about 2m.

This increased the depth of the airfoil, giving the wing more structural efficiency, helping to reduce weight and adding to the fuel capacity. The manufacturer also simplified the trailing edge system to double slotted inboard flaps and single slotted outboard.

"We were able to make that simpler, get weight out, help reduce the maintenance costs for the operators and still get the low-speed performance that we need for the airplane," Mooney says.

Other improvements include electronic spoilers, the use of new alloys and some carbon composites as well as better integration of the engine nacelles to reduce drag.

Boeing says the 747-8 also wins when it comes to structural efficiency. It says the A380 is 18 per cent heavier than the 747-8 in terms of operating empty weight per seat, a measure of structural efficiency, and would need to be stretched to 650 seats to match its competitor.

As well as improved efficiency, the new Boeing plane features a new interior and an upgraded flight deck and will meet London Heathrow's QC2 noise requirements. Interior changes include access to empty space behind the bulge at the front of the plane for use as galley space or even passenger beds.


TOPICS: Business/Economy
KEYWORDS: 747; 7478; boeing
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-76 next last
Here's the whole title:

Boeing lets fly with a jumbo sales pitch

(Qantas is being wooed with a barrage of 747-8 efficiency statistics)


1 posted on 03/27/2006 1:48:06 AM PST by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: COEXERJ145; microgood; liberallarry; cmsgop; shaggy eel; RayChuang88; Larry Lucido; namsman; ...

If you want on or off my aerospace ping list, please contact me by Freep mail.

2 posted on 03/27/2006 1:49:44 AM PST by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

Does this mean Boeing is putting a supercritical airfoil on the wings of the new 747-8?


3 posted on 03/27/2006 1:50:54 AM PST by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

operating cost per seat-mile
fuel burn per seat-mile...

is what in cents?


4 posted on 03/27/2006 3:08:30 AM PST by greasepaint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

Good for good ol' Boeing!

It reminds me of the internal combustion engine. Every time a new type of engine comes along, the I.C. is tweaked until it's at least as good as the upstart, usually better. Same with steel. New materials keep threatening it and so they tweak the steel to be competitive with the new materials, mostly in cost.

I love it when Boeing moves ahead!


5 posted on 03/27/2006 4:18:18 AM PST by RoadTest (The wicked love darkness; but God's people love the Light!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

Give me Boeing or I ain't going.


6 posted on 03/27/2006 4:23:16 AM PST by Jim Noble (And you know what I'm talkin' 'bout!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

AND the '47 can go into existing, unmodified airports/ gates. The '47 also meets noise requirements which the Airbus is rumoured to fail badly.


7 posted on 03/27/2006 4:58:59 AM PST by Blueflag (Res ipsa loquitor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

Meanwhile back at Airbus – In a required evacuation drill of its new two-deck A380 superjumbo – 21 volunteer evacuees are injured including a broken leg. Ignore all the ambulances says Airbus, it was a huge success.

Airbus evacuated all 873 people from a two-deck A380 superjumbo jet in under 90 seconds in a key certification test. The test took place at an Airbus facility in Hamburg, Germany.

Daniel Holtgen, a spokesman for the European Aviation Safety Agency, said, "All indications are it was a total success."


8 posted on 03/27/2006 5:29:04 AM PST by NavyCanDo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NavyCanDo
873 trained athletes.
9 posted on 03/27/2006 5:56:17 AM PST by Eric in the Ozarks (BTUs are my Beat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
"Mooney estimates that about a third of the efficiency improvements come from the 65,000lb-thrust GEnx 2B67 engines, which are based on the GEnx engines launched on the 787 Dreamliner."

If there is one weak point in this it is the GE engine. They never have had a good record for reliability.

10 posted on 03/27/2006 7:32:00 AM PST by nightdriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

I just think it's funny that the guy in charge of developing Boeings is named Mooney.


11 posted on 03/27/2006 8:02:18 AM PST by Turbopilot (Nothing in the above post is or should be construed as legal research, analysis, or advice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
Sounds great, but something tells me this might be a case of "funny math". I'd like to see AirBus's response. If these numbers are correct, the A380 will be delegated to only a small flying niche, some of the Asian markets where they really pack in the passengers.

Assuming it is correct, this study really hurts Airbus, IMHO.

12 posted on 03/27/2006 8:12:26 AM PST by Paradox (".. and remove all doubt.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nightdriver

You might want to check the data on the GE90 and the F404, as only two examples, and then revise your silly statement.


13 posted on 03/27/2006 9:09:58 AM PST by A.A. Cunningham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Paradox; phantomworker
Sounds great, but something tells me this might be a case of "funny math". I'd like to see AirBus's response. If these numbers are correct, the A380 will be delegated to only a small flying niche, some of the Asian markets where they really pack in the passengers.

Except that Boeing has a reputation of meeting or exceeding the performance gurantees it makes on its aircraft. The 777-300ER has exceeded its performance goals by 1.5%. This has been translated into greater than expected range or higher payload. If the 747-8 follows the same trend, the actual performance of the test aircraft will be significantly better than the promises.

14 posted on 03/27/2006 9:18:52 AM PST by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

I agree, PC. Looks like the -8, both the passenger and the stretched freighter model is going to be a super efficient derivative because of its new engines and wings. ;)


15 posted on 03/27/2006 12:13:32 PM PST by phantomworker (You are what you think you are...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

Can somebody tell me why Boeing moved from Seattle to Chicago? That makes no sense.


16 posted on 03/27/2006 6:28:05 PM PST by AGreatPer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: AGreatPer; phantomworker
Can somebody tell me why Boeing moved from Seattle to Chicago? That makes no sense.

They just moved their top level corporate headquarters. They've merged so many companies into Boeing in the last several years that Seattle isn't central to their other operations especially defense related buisinesses. It was also to send a message to the Washington state legislature and labor unions that Boeing would be willing to locate manufacturing of new aircraft to other states if they weren't treated well.

17 posted on 03/27/2006 6:37:32 PM PST by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Blueflag
The best thing about the 747-8 is the fact that you don't need the enormous expense of building 80 x 80 meter gates with dual-level jet bridges like you need with the A380-800. Also, the range the 747-8 (8,000 nautical miles still-air) is enough to fly most of the world's long-range city pairs, too.

I think it's likely that both British Airways and Japan Airlines--already large 747-400 operators--will end up buying the 747-8 instead of the A380-800 because both airlines have far less landing slot restrictions at their home airports (London Heathrow for British Airways and Tokyo Narita for Japan Airlines).

18 posted on 03/27/2006 6:42:27 PM PST by RayChuang88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

That's interesting. I think people might still be debating why the move to Chicago. I never heard it said like that, but you might be right. The Company did offload most of its manufacturing already and has become a large scale integrator.


19 posted on 03/27/2006 7:35:55 PM PST by phantomworker (You are what you think you are...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
Boeing usually over engineer their planes and are conservative in their promised performance numbers before the actual plane is either in testing or actual service.
20 posted on 03/27/2006 8:49:57 PM PST by Prophet in the wilderness (PSALM 53 : 1 The FOOL hath said in his heart , There is no GOD .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: phantomworker
I read in a book about the 747 that the 747 was in it's conception to be stretched in the future and they designed it to be stretched, but, Boeing never really found justification to stretch it until now with the new engine ( GEnx ).
Boeing also within the last few year ( why they have not found out until a few years ago is beyond me ) discovered that when they stretched the 747 ( up to a certain point ) that the 747 airframe actually becomes more structurally efficient.
The 747 design was heavily influenced by Juan Tripp and that it's shape was influenced by it becoming a freighter ( that is why it has the famed 747 hump ) and for it's nose to be opened up for freight loads.
21 posted on 03/27/2006 8:57:29 PM PST by Prophet in the wilderness (PSALM 53 : 1 The FOOL hath said in his heart , There is no GOD .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
Here is a link for a full discussion on ( Airliners.net ) this very subject.

( http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/2676362/)
22 posted on 03/27/2006 9:03:14 PM PST by Prophet in the wilderness (PSALM 53 : 1 The FOOL hath said in his heart , There is no GOD .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Prophet in the wilderness

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/2676362/


23 posted on 03/27/2006 9:04:31 PM PST by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: RayChuang88

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/2669068/


24 posted on 03/27/2006 9:07:04 PM PST by Prophet in the wilderness (PSALM 53 : 1 The FOOL hath said in his heart , There is no GOD .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
BOEING is pitching the new version of its legendary jumbo jet to Qantas, arguing it will beat Airbus's double decker A380 on costs per seat as well as for a total trip.

Not only that, but your origin and destination won't need to repave and refit just to accommodate you.

25 posted on 03/27/2006 9:07:12 PM PST by Petronski (I love Cyborg!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Prophet in the wilderness

Interesting.


26 posted on 03/27/2006 9:08:35 PM PST by phantomworker (You are what you think you are...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: RayChuang88
I think it's likely that both British Airways and Japan Airlines--already large 747-400 operators...

I get to fly a BA 747-400 in June (first time) and I'm as excited as a little school boy.

27 posted on 03/27/2006 9:10:34 PM PST by Petronski (I love Cyborg!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Prophet in the wilderness
Boeing usually over engineer their planes and are conservative in their promised performance numbers before the actual plane is either in testing or actual service.

Probably because it has to go through just rigorous testing and type certification by the FAA?

28 posted on 03/27/2006 9:12:15 PM PST by phantomworker (You are what you think you are...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: phantomworker
That could possibly be, or Boeing being just Boeing building the worlds best airplanes.
29 posted on 03/27/2006 9:14:12 PM PST by Prophet in the wilderness (PSALM 53 : 1 The FOOL hath said in his heart , There is no GOD .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative; cyborg; Prophet in the wilderness

Holy cow, look at this:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/photos/popup.asp?SubID=1342&page=4&GTitle=Boeing%20747%2D8%20interior&css=gtitle%2Ecss&pubdate=12/14/05

Sleeping berths in the hump above coach!?! Each slide shows a space bigger than my apartment in law school!


30 posted on 03/27/2006 9:17:47 PM PST by Petronski (I love Cyborg!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
Try to get a first class or business seat if you can afford it, economy class is horrible in any large airplane no matter what company builds it.
I flew in 7 747's and I loved it, but, the seats bothered my back and behind, so try to get a comfortable seat if you can.
It was so neat to watch the wing's flaps in operation, and when your on the ground the wing is straight, but, in cruising altitude the wing bends up , don't worry, it's normal, and planes are engineered and tested beyond what the FAA requires for wing flex, ever see Boeing test wing flex ? it's so cool to watch the wing snap when flexed way beyond it's normal complicity.
31 posted on 03/27/2006 9:20:58 PM PST by Prophet in the wilderness (PSALM 53 : 1 The FOOL hath said in his heart , There is no GOD .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Petronski; RayChuang88; phantomworker; Central Scrutiniser
I get to fly a BA 747-400 in June (first time) and I'm as excited as a little school boy.

Is there any difference between the experience of flying a 747-400 as a passenger compared to a 747-100 or 747-200? What I thought was strange about the 747 classics was how much the wings bend up and down during flight. It's a little unnerving the first time you see it. I never got to fly on a 747SP, but I did see one at HNL in 1978.

32 posted on 03/27/2006 9:21:26 PM PST by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

We're probably going to try to sit as far aft as possible (honeymooners, you know) . . . so I'll keep an eye out for that wingflex.

I should point out that I've never flown any 747 configuration, just some 737s and a pair of 767s.


33 posted on 03/27/2006 9:24:10 PM PST by Petronski (I love Cyborg!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative; AGreatPer

The disgraced former CEO who had an affair with a subordinate liked living in Chicago over Seattle. Not the reason they claimed, but likely the real one.


34 posted on 03/27/2006 9:25:35 PM PST by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

The 747SP is a rocket! I changed a whole vacation around just to ride on one! I had a ticket from Johannesburg to Miami, and I asked them if I could exchange it for Johannesbug to Frankfurt. My only flight on the SP.

As for the 100, I think I only flew it once on TWA, and we had 4 -200's. Only did the 300 once LA to Amsterdam round trip.

The 400 is great, I've been on combis and regular. Been upper deck in coach and all over the plane, its like a big flying house.

400 has better TV and audio and all that. Lots of 200's are gone, damn few flying. Wings do flex, that is what they are supposed to do.


35 posted on 03/27/2006 9:28:24 PM PST by Central Scrutiniser (Stunned, he asked: "What do you call your act?" "The Aristocrats!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
That never really bothered me on my first flight on a airplane, the wing flex didn't bother me, nor did the turbulence bother me, the only thing that bothered me was the uncomfortable economy seats.
Sitting 14 hours straight really puts a strain on your back and behind.
36 posted on 03/27/2006 9:28:50 PM PST by Prophet in the wilderness (PSALM 53 : 1 The FOOL hath said in his heart , There is no GOD .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Prophet in the wilderness

Yes, I've seen simulations of the wing flex on PBS/Discovery/NatlGeographic, but never in reality. I am going to insist on a window seat and we will hopefully be far aft.

Sorry for us, we have to fly coach. More's the pity, we have a layover at LHR before getting on a ScareBus something or other.


37 posted on 03/27/2006 9:30:39 PM PST by Petronski (I love Cyborg!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
The 757 was a great plane that I got to ride on.
Comfortable seats, and when it took off from the runway, it took off like a rocket , the angle of attack was steep, and the engines had plenty of thrust to get it going.
The 787 is suppose to replace the 757 and 767.
38 posted on 03/27/2006 9:33:52 PM PST by Prophet in the wilderness (PSALM 53 : 1 The FOOL hath said in his heart , There is no GOD .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Prophet in the wilderness

The two worst aspects of transatlantic flight are the noise and the dehydration. This time, I am prepared!


39 posted on 03/27/2006 9:34:21 PM PST by Petronski (I love Cyborg!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Prophet in the wilderness

All I remember was how friggin' huge the engines were. I remember looking out that window and thinking "I could park my car inside one of those!"

And I drive the Crown Vic.


40 posted on 03/27/2006 9:35:44 PM PST by Petronski (I love Cyborg!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: NavyCanDo

Actually, there were 33 injuries.


41 posted on 03/27/2006 9:37:00 PM PST by DennisR (Look around - God is giving you countless observable clues of His existence!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: nightdriver

Source???


42 posted on 03/27/2006 9:37:26 PM PST by DennisR (Look around - God is giving you countless observable clues of His existence!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
From the experience I had taking off in the 747, when it gets off the runway, it's a little wobbly , but, once the 747 gets to cruising altitude, it's a smooth as glass , unless you run into turbulence.
You'll be amazed once you sit down in your seat and look out the windows and actually see how long the wings are on the 747, it's makes the wings on the 737, 757, 767 look tiny.
43 posted on 03/27/2006 9:37:54 PM PST by Prophet in the wilderness (PSALM 53 : 1 The FOOL hath said in his heart , There is no GOD .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Prophet in the wilderness; cyborg

I'm now looking forward to the crummy three hour layover at LHR. Apparently it's a great place for planewatchers.

I see commercial jets in up close in person and I'm like a little kid (again).

There's something highly irrational and magical about air travel. I might be more giddy about that than I should, but I'm a geek and Dearest understands that...so I guess it's okay.


44 posted on 03/27/2006 9:41:03 PM PST by Petronski (I love Cyborg!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: NavyCanDo; DennisR
Injuries during the evacuation tests are very common regardless of the manufacturer. Usually it is from burns caused by the plastic slides and sometimes broken bones from being hit by another person.
45 posted on 03/27/2006 9:41:09 PM PST by COEXERJ145 (Real Leaders Base Their Decisions on Their Convictions. Wannabes Base Decisions on the Latest Poll.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

well,, I never saw the wing flex in reality, only on video or PBS specials, anyhow, interesting to say the lest to see how much they test those planes today.


46 posted on 03/27/2006 9:41:28 PM PST by Prophet in the wilderness (PSALM 53 : 1 The FOOL hath said in his heart , There is no GOD .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser
" The 747SP is a rocket! I changed a whole vacation around just to ride on one! "

Lucky guy

They were built like a tank those 747SP.
Did you even hear about the 747SP flying to SFO and all 4 engines stalled and the pilot tried to go into a controlled dive and lost control of the 747 ( actually into a spiral uncontrolled dive and for a few seconds was doing over mach speed ).
The plane had a few parts actually tear off , but, the plane still managed to land limping safely back to SFO.
There is not many 747SP around today, and I don't think I will ever be lucky enough to ever get to fly in one.
The 747-800I is looking to be a great airplane in it's own right, even though it might not reach the sales of the 747-400, but, only time will tell, this plane might sell or exceed the 400 sales, but who knows at this point.
47 posted on 03/27/2006 9:49:32 PM PST by Prophet in the wilderness (PSALM 53 : 1 The FOOL hath said in his heart , There is no GOD .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser

There are a few 747-100s and 200s still flying in the freighter market, how many, I don't know, but, yes, they are slowly fading into the sunset.


48 posted on 03/27/2006 9:51:37 PM PST by Prophet in the wilderness (PSALM 53 : 1 The FOOL hath said in his heart , There is no GOD .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Prophet in the wilderness

There are a few very dodgy operators flying them in SE Asia right now, and JAL still flies a few.

The ones we got in '89 were already 15 years old and had 15,000 cycles on them. Parts fell of on takeoff, I was on a flight where the gear punctured the fuselage...

Same goes for the DC-10, its become a rareity as well. The MD-11 does great for cargo though.


49 posted on 03/27/2006 10:11:49 PM PST by Central Scrutiniser (Stunned, he asked: "What do you call your act?" "The Aristocrats!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: NavyCanDo

Trust me, that was an incredible sucess. Evac tests always have injuries, McDonnell had a woman break her neck and be paralyzed for life. They put out more people in a shorter period of time than any one else ever, they are to be congratulated.


50 posted on 03/27/2006 10:14:23 PM PST by Central Scrutiniser (Stunned, he asked: "What do you call your act?" "The Aristocrats!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-76 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson