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

The Australian ^ | May 26, 2006 | Geoffrey Thomas

[Redbob]

"According to Jeff Peace, vice-president and program manager for 747, the "747-8... is 30 per cent quieter than the 747-400s in service with Qantas".

Sad to say, a 30% reduction in noise equates to a 1.5 dB reduction, an amount that is barely detectible by the human ear.

[nightdriver]

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

That was considered extensively at the first, back in the late '60s.

The problem was that the FAA at that time would not allow any passengers on the upper deck due to evacuation considerations.

It looks like the FAA has changed its mind since then.

[hattend]

Sad to say, a 30% reduction in noise equates to a 1.5 dB reduction, an amount that is barely detectible by the human ear.

Please explain. The way it reads to me is that if the -400 was putting out 130 dB the -8 will put out <100 dB.

[Energy Alley]

In the real world, airplanes are rarely configured as Airbus and Boeing advertise them. And the 777-300 might only have 50 fewer seats than a 747.

The 747-800 is too expensive to a retread, even with a discount it is still ridiculously expensive. For the freighters, this is still worth while - there is alot of flying scrap metal out there that needs replacement and with the front loading capability and dramatic improvement in operational economics the 748F is ideal, it just isn't their first choice - in which case you better be the price leader, which the 747-800 is not.

The Japanese airlines actually do like Airbus, unfortunately for Airbus - US trade surplus mitigation is official government policy and buying Airbus will get them a molten lead enema from Tokyo.

At one point the Japanese government was buying planes themselves and just parking them as part of the policy.

[Energy Alley]

SYD-LHR via DFW would not be a very attractive service.

There are dozens of more direct connection oppertunities to London in Asia.

[Aquinasfan]

The military has the B-52 on it's books ( correct me if I am wrong ) up until 2040.

Whoa! What about metal fatigue?

[saleman]

"The 747 .. still a miracle, still the original jumbo jet."

Ain't that the truth. I don't fly a lot but I've been in several different "Jumbo" jets. Most comfortable ride by far has been 747. I don't believe anyone, in all the years since the 747 has been designed, has developed a better plane than 747 for intercontinental flights. Really, I don't even understand why they try.

[GunnyHartman]

The 797?

[cpdiii]

Whoa! What about metal fatigue?

They are taken apart many times during their flying life. Critical areas and parts are inspected, magnafluxed for cracks etc, and replaced or repaired as needed. It may be an old dog but it is a good dog and still will deliver a nasty nasty bite.

[Paleo Conservative]

Whoa! What about metal fatigue?

They only fly 400 hours per year

[georgia2006]

SYD-JNB is already nonstop both directions with a 744

[georgia2006]

""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.""

DFW cost per enplanement is probably lower than either LAX or SFO

[georgia2006]

it would be one daily flight..market cant support two. nearly 80% of the traffic will be connecting

[Paleo Conservative]

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

I don't think very many passengers could afford what it costs to operate an aerial refueling tanker. I read a report on fuel efficiency and its effects on military operations. It said that a gallon of jet fuel costs about $17 when delivered by tanker compared to a couple of dollars to load that same fuel from a depot on the ground. There's also an element of danger involved with aerial refueling. There's a risk of two maybe more aircraft crashing. There's a reason Air Force One has never been refueled in the air while the President was on board. In fact the Air Force usually doesn't even practice refueling with either of the VC-25's. They use the E-4's to avoid damaging the paint on Air Force One.

[Energy Alley]

utilization of aircraft by the military is extremely low, I encoutered a KC-135 pilot who flies a plane twice her age, and in airline service would only be comming up on its first heavy check.

[Prophet in the wilderness]

I can only guess that they replace that part if it needs to be replaced.

[Prophet in the wilderness]

Actually, it was the president and C.E.O. of Pan Am airlines Juan Tripp who had the most influence , input, and design of the 747.
Back before the 747 was even built, Juan Tripp thought that the 747 was just a stop gap effort because back in the late 60s most thought that the SST would be the mainstay of airlines, so Juan Tripp told Boeing to add the " 747 Hump " because he saw the future of it being a freighter ( and so it did fulfilled that role ).
But, to Juan Tripps and Boeing's surprise the 747 because the outstanding success, and so the 747 lives on today.
Juan Trip saw that the hump would give it the capability to have a door on the freighters that would hinge up, and the hump would give it the capacity to load big loads on the 747-F.
So ? it was Juan Tripp who had the most design influence of the 747.
Another thing to note is ? in contrast to the wing test of the A-380 failing in it's max load flex text ( Airbus has to reinforce the wings with added metal ) the 747's wing flex test back in 1969 exceeded and surprised, and happily satisfied Boeing that it exceeded the max flex allowed by the F.A.A., the early 747's wing was robust enough that Boeing didn't actually need to put reinforcement into the wings.

[Prophet in the wilderness]

In a 3 class configure, the 747-8I can hold 450 pax easily, or even 480.
I would guess that the 747-8I can and will hold more that the 777-300.
But with Qantas, they want to open a new route to SYN-DFW round trip year round, they can't do that with the 777-300 or 777-200LR because of winds going west.

[Prophet in the wilderness]

Also Lufthansa airlines, I believe it was Lufthansa airlines who have been telling Boeing to build a large 747 for the passed 10 years.

[RayChuang88]

I think Lufthansa is taking a wait and see attitude with the A380-800 before ordering the 747-8I. If Airbus can meet the original 8,000 nautical mile range goal at standard payload, then Lufthansa may end up buying a mix of A380-800's and the upcoming Enhanced A340-600 for fleet commonality reasons. (Note that Lufthansa has a substantial A340-600 fleet.)