Boeing's Intercontinental flies into the limelight (747-8 Sydney to DFW)

The Australian ^ | May 26, 2006 | Geoffrey Thomas

[Energy Alley]

unfortunately outside of the freight community who likes the nose-loading capability, the 747-800 is only attracting minimal interest among mainstream airlines. The bottom line is at roughly the same price as the 777-300, the airlines would rather have the 777.

[Energy Alley]

Unless your American Airlines, DFW is a terminating destination. DFW is just too damn expensive if you don't have a particular need to be there.

Delta abandoned DFW as a hub because it was far more expensive than hubbing in ATL.

[Paleo Conservative]

Unless your American Airlines, DFW is a terminating destination.

QANTAS and American are both in the oneworld alliance. American has no interest in flying its own planes to Australia or New Zealand. They would be very happy to feed QANTAS's flights to DFW. They already do this to LAX.

[Energy Alley]

yes and that is the purpose of the individual proposed flight to DFW, one can connect to anywhere in the Americas from DFW on American... but what your proposing is a significant Qantas build-out at DFW - that will never happen.

DFW is too expensive an airport to opperate from unless you absolutely have to, most of the connections to be made can be made from Los Angeles - the only traffic that makes sense out of DFW is traffic terminating there, or connecting in the southeast.

[nightdriver]

"...some how make it lighter with composite panels ( unless it already is ) and some how ( that is ? if it is safe and feasible to so ) to put fuel tanks in that shroud under the fuselage ?"

I no longer work at the "Lazy 'B'," but, believe it or not, composits do not always result in lower weight. It all depends on what the structural considerations dictate.

As to adding volume for fuel - the plane has a "wet wing," which means that there are no tanks in the plane, per se. The first 747 model had a dry weight of some 360,000 pounds and could carry some 53,000 gallons of fuel, if need be.

That was utilizing a center main tank which was in the wing section right under the fuselage. The old bird had plenty of available volume for fuel, the limiting factor was weight. If it was completely full of fuel, there wasn't much carrying capacity left over for payload.

[Prophet in the wilderness]

Doesn't the 747-400ER have a extra fuel tank in the vertical tail of the plane that was a option for the airline to take out at it's own will ?
Yes, I know most of the airplane's fuel capacity is in the wings ( sealed areas in the wing ).
Then again, it was just a idea, thinking of ways to always improve on the 747.
I guess the added fuel tanks would add weight to the plane in it's initial stage of flight, then, could not reach optimal flight level and it would not be economical until that fuel is burned off.
My mind is always running and thinking of innovative ways ( even if I don't hold a engineer degree, and I am not a engineer at Boeing ) to improve.

[Prophet in the wilderness]

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/2790548/

[tom paine 2]

The DFW international terminal is really nice. I started using it as a quiet area last summer when it first opened.

[NavyCanDo]

Airbus Has A Bad Case Of Jet Lag.

[Zuben Elgenubi]

I love the 747.

[longtermmemmory]

Another plus for the 747 is the intimate upper deck, which is more like a private executive jet and is the first zone of business class to fill up.

It seems they could stretch the upper deck to add more of a second floor.

[devane617]

The engineer that put the hump on the front of the 747 was a freep'n genius. 747 without a doubt the the most recognizable aircraft in history.

[Paleo Conservative]

It seems they could stretch the upper deck to add more of a second floor.

The hump is optimally shaped. If it were any longer it would cause more drag. Notice the hump ends just as the wings begin. That's why it minimizes drag.

[longtermmemmory]

ahhhh,

thanks

learn something new every day.

[Proud_USA_Republican]

Can't the 747-8 hold more passengers than a 777-300?

And I've heard that Quantas, Singapore, and JAL are very interested in the 747-8. The Japanese airlines especially don't like Airbust. They love Boeing planes.
The cargo version of the 747-8 has a lot of interest as well.

[RayChuang88]

And I've heard that Qantas, Singapore, and JAL are very interested in the 747-8. The Japanese airlines especially don't like Airbust.

Actually, Singapore Airlines is watching how well the A380-800 does when it comes to still-air range at standard mean takeoff weight (MTOW). If the A380-800 can demonstrate the original 8,000 nautical mile still-air range at standard MTOW, then Singapore Airlines would end up buying more A380-800's than buying the 747-8I. However, the air cargo division of Singapore Airlines would definitely want to buy the 747-8F, though.

I believe that besides Qantas (which will use the 747-8I on the Sydney-Dallas and Sydney-Johannesberg routes), the primary customers will be Japan Airlines and British Airways, since both of these airlines are least affected by landing slot restrictions at their own home airports.

[RayChuang88]

However, I think Qantas would be smart to operate the Sydney-Dallas flight because given that both Qantas and American Airlines are OneWorld members, American Airlines can put a codeshare flight number on this flight and because of plentiful capacity at DFW, Qantas can feed the main hub for American Airlines' massive USA network. It also gives the option of another route from Sydney to London, where AA 777-200ER's using that new International terminal at DFW can fly passengers to London that arrived from that Qantas flight from Sydney to Dallas.

[patton]

I am tired of being husted on to cattle cars, crammed in like a sardine, and tossed about.

I am flying home tomorrow - then I will stay there.

[El Gran Salseron]

They want longer flights?

I know very little about aviation. However, why couldn't tankers be used?

[Doe Eyes]

but what your proposing is a significant Qantas build-out at DFW - that will never happen.

I would imagine Qantas would add, at most, two flights a day in and out of DFW. They would use existing gates at the new international terminal and would share ticketing and clubs with America.

I don't see the need for a significant build-out.