Boeing Launches New 747-8 Family

[Ironsight 1]

Quote[/b] ]Boeing Launches New 747-8 Family

SEATTLE, Nov. 14, 2005 -- The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] today officially launched the new Boeing 747-8 program, which includes the 747-8 Intercontinental passenger airplane and the 747-8 Freighter airplane.

Cargolux, based in Luxembourg, has ordered 10 747-8 Freighters and will take delivery of the first 747-8F in third-quarter 2009. It also holds purchase rights for 10 additional airplanes. Cargolux currently operates an all-Boeing fleet of 13 747-400 freighters.

Nippon Cargo Airlines, based in Japan, has ordered eight 747-8 Freighters and will receive its first airplane in fourth-quarter 2009. The airline also acquired options for six additional airplanes. Nippon Cargo currently operates 13 747 freighters and has six more 747-400Fs on order.

Firm orders from the two launch customers are valued at approximately $5 billion at list prices.

"We are thrilled to have Cargolux and Nippon Cargo choose the new 747-8 and become the launch customers for this next generation of the proud and valuable 747 airplane family," said Alan Mulally, president and chief executive officer, Boeing Commercial Airplanes. "The 747-8 will use the technologies of the 787 Dreamliner to significantly increase the passenger and freighter capabilities of the 747 and offer greater fuel efficiency, improved operating economics, and be more friendly to the environment with reduced noise and emissions."

Both versions of the new 747 will feature GE's 787-technology GEnx engines, meet Stage 4 and QC2 noise requirements, have reduced emissions, offer lower trip costs and have an upgraded flight deck and an improved wing.

"The 747-8 Freighter will be very important in allowing Nippon Cargo to take advantage of the high expected cargo market growth in Asia," said Takuro Uchiyama, president and CEO, Nippon Cargo Airlines. "In addition, the 747-8 Freighter will be the world's most efficient cargo airplane, which is a key attribute with today's high cost of fuel."

Ulrich Ogiermann, president and CEO, Cargolux Airlines, said, "The Boeing 747-400 Freighter has been a cornerstone of our success, and I have high expectations that the 747-8 Freighter will build on that success and expand our capabilities worldwide. The increased payload capacity and much improved efficiency will allow us to continue our expansion and maximize our profitability. Equally important to us and the communities where we operate is the new standard the 747-8 Freighter will set in noise reduction."

The 747-8 Intercontinental passenger airplane will be stretched 3.6 m (11.7 ft) compared to the 747-400 to accommodate 34 additional seats in a typical three-class configuration. The only jetliner in the 400- to 500-seat category, it will have a range of 14,815 km (8,000 nmi) and will feature the new Boeing Signature Interior.

The Intercontinental will be quieter, produce fewer emissions, and achieve better fuel economy than any competing jetliner. It will offer 21 percent more lower-hold revenue cargo volume than the 747-400 and cost about 8 percent less per seat mile to operate. Compared to the A380, it will offer 22 percent lower trip costs.

The 747-8 Freighter will be 5.6 m (18.3 ft) longer than the 747-400 freighter. With a total payload capacity of 140 metric tonnes (154 tons), including tare weight, the 747-8F provides 16 percent more cargo revenue volume than the -400. The additional 117mł (4,124 ftł) from the longer fuselage offers space for four additional main-deck pallets, two additional lower-hold pallets and two additional lower-hold containers. Cargo can be loaded and unloaded on the 747-8F using both the nose and side doors for maximum speed and efficiency.

Compared to the A380, the 747-8F will offer 20 percent lower trip costs. In addition, the 747-8F will maintain the operational flexibility of today's 747 freighters, with good profit potential at less-than-full loads.

The 747-8 Freighter complements the existing 747-400 freighter family, which is the air-cargo industry's standard. Both models accommodate 3.1-meter (10-foot) high pallets, providing operators with maximum flexibility.

The 747-8 also fits easily in today's aviation infrastructure, flying into more than 210 airports worldwide without additional, expensive infrastructure changes required.

The 747 freighter family currently constitutes more than half of the world's total freighter capacity. Boeing freighters of all models comprise more than 90 percent of the total worldwide freighter lift.

Boeing forecasts the need for about 900 airplanes -- passengers and freighters -- in the 400-plus-seat segment over the next 20 years. Boeing also forecasts that large widebody freighters (65 metric tons and above in capacity) will comprise 34 percent of the freighter market by 2024.

Didn't Boeing stated before that they didn't want to develop a concept similair to the A-380

[Acecombat 0]

So this is not a passenger plane .. pfft. I am not interested then .

[Tigershark_BAS 0]

Yes...slightly misleading post as it does not seem to refer to a passenger plane like the A380 at all. Mildly interesting though. The wing design looks interesting.

[soul_assassin 1750]

So this is not a passenger plane .. pfft. I am not interested then .

did u read the article? it will have a cargo AND a passenger version. But still dont think it will be any dangerous competition to the A380 which also has cargo/passenger capabilities and can fit a hell ofa lot more than this new 747-8.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

well the wings are defiently pretty beautiful!

Also, there are a lot of airlines out there which are pretty loyal to Boeing, such as Lufthansa for example. So I assume they would favour a Boeing over an Airbus!

[Supah 0]

well the wings are defiently pretty beautiful!

Also, there are a lot of airlines out there which are pretty loyal to Boeing, such as Lufthansa for example. So I assume they would favour a Boeing over an Airbus!

In modern times brand loyalty doesnt mean much in the airline business. Its fuel economy and asses on seats that count.

[Acecombat 0]

So this is not a passenger plane .. pfft. I am not interested then   .

did u read the article? it will have a cargo AND a passenger version. But still dont think it will be any dangerous competition to the A380 which also has cargo/passenger capabilities and can fit a hell ofa lot more than this new 747-8.

I just had a cursory glance at it , so i might have missed that.

[soul_assassin 1750]

well the wings are defiently pretty beautiful!

Also, there are a lot of airlines out there which are pretty loyal to Boeing, such as Lufthansa for example. So I assume they would favour a Boeing over an Airbus!

In modern times brand loyalty doesnt mean much in the airline business. Its fuel economy and asses on seats that count.

unless ur american airline company. Majority still goes with Boeing and MD.

Oh and the wing design looks very weird, never have seen anything close to it.

[EiZei 0]

Silly americans and their silly little planes..

[Acecombat 0]

Silly americans and their silly little planes..

Do i sense jealousy .

The wing is quite sexy looking when you look at it ,i mean the curve and all dunno how fuel efficient that design is or even practical.

[shinRaiden 0]

McDonnell Douglas bought out Boeing a long time ago, and Airbus has been happily busy ever since.

Boeing's floated the idea of tweaking the 747 regularly, it's conviently timed around union contract negotiations so that they can claim to the unions that there's actual work going on, or for marketing guys to do CYA for not getting to work, or for the engineers to sit around and doodle crazy ideas that were never intended to see the light of day.

The machinsts just got done slugging it out in a couple week strike against the mis-management, now it's the Engineers union's turn. Different story though, they signed right up. Dinner table jokes last night was that the engineers paniced at the thought of life outside the cubicle, so they signed on for the first package from management rather than risk the prospect of standing around outside the gates without a clue as to what to do.

On the other hand the frieghter dept is usually spared the nonsense of the passenger side, and the suicidal perverse cronyism and incompetence in defense business. Maybe something will come of it, just as long as it's built anywhere but Seattle. Since humans are the plague and capitalism is evil, anything that helps spread the plague and worse make money must be banned from the land of the moss-smoking NIMBY nuts.

[theavonlady 2]

McDonnell Douglas bought out Boeing

Actually it was a stock merge and Boeing retained dominancy.

[red oct 2]

im not really thrilled about these larger airliners. to me it just means more deaths if or when the damn thing crashes. but if airline companies want them and are will to spend billions to get them, why argue w/ them. at least Boeing is offering something by making it 12% more fuel efficient than the A380. so maybe it won't be a total waste of time and money. still think they should give more attention to their smaller fleet of planes.

[shinRaiden 0]

McDonnell Douglas bought out Boeing

Actually it was a stock merge and Boeing retained dominancy.

McDonnell Douglas did a leveraged buyout of Boeing using Boeing's money, since Harry Stonecipher and Phil Condit went to school together. Harry was out of cash, and Phil was out of secretaries.

Harry decided to try a change from corruption for communism (Seattle politics) to corruption for capitalism (Chicago) and there was dancing in the streets here when the "evil capitalist pigs" started turning their wagons east. Phil was happy because it was further from all his ex's and Chicago offered a new crop of skirts.

Phil got dumped when the henhouse finally blew down, then Harry got bounced for cleaning up behind him and filling the ranks with paid pentagon procurement staffers.

Of course Airbus is in bed with the European governments, they do that so they can build planes and get stuff done. Boeing's management is just looking for every way to complicate their own lives to suck up to the boondoggles of King Ron and Empress Cristine.

[Akira 0]

Boeing bought MD, not the other way around with a transfer to Boeing stock. If MD bought out Boeing in any manner it would be McDonnell-Douglas 737's we'd be flying around on and not Boeing. Boeing also bought out MD to prevent Airbus from doing it.

In the case of the 747-8, you will notice it is not A380 "like." It's not in the same seat capacity there for Boeing can continue to say that there isn't a demand for something the size of the A380.

I do find it quite telling that the launch customers are cargo companies and not passenger carrying. In the world commercial industry, usually the pax version is launched first and THEN the cargo version. The 747-400 hasn't sold a pax version in a year or so (at most one or two), but has done steady cargo variant sales.

[shinRaiden 0]

Just because "Boeing"s name is on the plaque doesn't mean that it's "Boeing" running the show. It was a private deal between Harry and Phil and at least Jim McDonnell had the sense to oppose Harry's efforts to trash another company. The whole fiasco had nothing to do with commercial and everything to do with defense contracts. Harry's Hatchets slashed up commercial and parted it out so they could cook the books to the shareholders in a "screw you" to Jim McDonnell, while turning around any cash flow to pay out settlements to all of Phil's ex's, and leaving the rest to pay under-the-table salaries to Pentagon procurement people and their families.

Anyways, like I said this is union contract time fluff, which timing makes the 'announcement' highly suspect. Management is notorious for pulling stuff like this to hijack union negotiations. The only exception could be that as this is the frieghter team, they normally don't much around with that bland cash cow. Same with the discussion recently about prolonging the 767 for frieghter duty. That was nonsense timed around the Machinists contract time.

The last hypersonic transport, as well as military cargo versions of the 747-F were similar FUD, they were trying to shift political pressures off of their blown bread and butter defense contracts.

In regards to the 747 however, engineering has been doodling all over that for decades. They've talked about putting in an extension plug. They've talked about changing wings and engines. The prototype 747 did the engine testing for the 777, they hung it as a 5th pod on the port wing iirc. There was even anti-A380 spamming talking about stretching the top deck the full length.

The biggest problem to all of this has actually been their marketing. The Japanese have an absurd amount of the 747's in use, and they use them like Southwest uses 737's. They pack the whole body full of coach seats, then squeeze them closer together for 500+ person 1~2 hour flights all over Japan. They're used in a commuter capacity, and the A380 is too bulky for that. Instead, the A380 is targeted at the EU-ME-SE Asia long hauls. The 747, being smaller, has more flexibility than the A380 does for those other 'creative' markets. The question is whether the management has the appropiate flexibilty. Marketing's sense of reality certainly seems flexible enough.

[Supah 0]

Shinraiden sounds like a disgruntled Boeing Employee

[blackdog~ 0]

Or an person with knowledge from living in Japan who knows lots of stuff and fancy words.

[Akira 0]

Japan does indeed use modified 747-100's (747SRs) in a 500+ single class domestic layout. Those 747's only have a range of about 2000km though.

The 777 originally had a design calling for a double decker hump near the back (back when it was called the 767X). The 747 originally was going to be a full double decker and McD also had ideas for a double decker. The idea is not original in the least, and it is yet to see whether their load factor concept will pan out or not, Airbus' concept relaying on the old "hub and spoke" system, and Boeing banking on a more direct system, thus the vastly different size differences in their designs.

Personally, from my aviation experience, personally think Boeing might have it right for once. I've said for a timet he 747 design needs to die off. Yes it was revolutionary. Yes it changed air travel. Yes it deserves recognition. But its time has passed, and I firmly believe the concept behind the 787 will dominate the avaition industry for years. If Airbus load factors vindicate the A380, more power to them. If Emirates feels it can fill 40 of them, then...well thats really just "DAMN."

Boeing has launched the 737-900X which could be a successful 757 replacement as well as a bridge between the 737 family and the 787 family giving Boeing an entire range of familial planes...something Airbus needs to work on though they do well with commonality, something Boeing isn't too great at.

In short, Airbus' concept has yet to be proven viable, while Boeing's model fits more with current aviation and economical trends. The 747 does not fit in Boeing's current range, like the A350 makes no sense for Airbus.

[harley 3 1185 0]

As far as I can tell, the future of long-haul air travel is just full of big "If"s.

I agree with Akira that the 747 should be shot in the head, and this "New 747-8 Family" smacks of unoriginality, and possibly desperation.  Boeing should concentrate on the smaller designs, which will always be in constant demand and more palatable to an airline's shrinking capital, and may force a rethinking in domestic-midrange flying.  If Boeing wants to go ahead with the 747-8, they should stick to the freighter for the time being and start cultivating existing Boeing buyers like mad.  I know British Airways, which owns 57 747-400s, is relatively happy with their fleet, and they don't want all the hassle of investing in the novel idea of the A-380.

The A-380 strikes me as insane; the amount of money spent just putting the thing together is enough to make me sick - sure, it's an exercise in multi-national cooperation, but in the end the costs of so broad a plan are gonna hit someone somewhere, whether it be the buyers of the A-380, the airports who have to cater to it in the long run, Airbus itself, or the governments funding Airbus through the teeth.

The very idea of cramming so many people into a plane seems repulsive to me, and as has been pointed out, should there be an accident the death toll could be more catastrophic than anything before.  And as with all planes, there will be accidents.

As for the whole BoeingMD, Airbus dispute (which is bound to pop-up here); the former wouldn't survive without Defense Contracts (and there aren't as many defense contractors as there used to be, so less competition), and the latter wouldn't survive without government subsidy - to my mind, Airbus could probably make it alone without its subsidy (albeit with bank loans coming out of its ears for the next decade or two), whilst Boeing would be hard-pressed at the moment to make a living from its Civilian Aircraft Division.

Correct me if i'm wrong, by all means.  That's just my peculiar (the literary meaning) view of the situation.

Edit: Have to say the way the Japanese use 747s is very interesting. Must be one absolute bitch of an avgas bill, but cramming passangers in like that must be fairly profitable.

[shinRaiden 0]

Boeing could have done just fine without the MD mess, the problem is that management has not been able to grasp the idea of rolling cycles in the marketplace and thus compensate appropiately.

What is beginning to change in domestic travel is the massive impact of Southwest's horde of 737's, and metro area short-hopping. Their mesh structure, low price cattle car arrangements, and non-primary airport preference have had a significant impact on the US domestic market. Simply put, they can resell a seat 3 or 4 times in a 6 hour block, while a long haul carrier may only get one seat sale for a longer flight covering that whole window.

Secondly, they got extremely lucky and locked in a gamble on fuel contracts before they shot up, and so ended up with significantly lower fuel costs per barrel than their competition. It's the larger 737's from all carriers that are eating into the 757's area. It definately makes more sense to pull the 757 and stick to a common airframe for maintanence and operating costs.

In regards to the 767, Boeing fubar'd when they built it my making it a couple inches too narrow to take standard sized cargo containers. So if you pull a container off a 747 or A380 or 777 or something, you have to dump all the luggage out and completely repack it all, you can't just sort and forward containers. That slogs a lot of time and labor, both = $$$ and christmas package basketball.

[Student Pilot 0]

Quote[/b] ]Boeing has launched the 737-900X which could be a successful 757 replacement

Damn them for that. The 757 is a far superior plane than the 737.

I honestly can't see how Boeing can successfully keep stretching the 737. The later 737 models have experienced growing pains. It's time to retire the 737 line. It has gone through it's useful life. I believe Boeing will introduce a replacement for the 737 in the next few years. This new plane will be mostly composites and will have cockpit similarity with the 787.

I think Boeing's new 747-8 is an interesting idea. I see it as a way to undermine the A380. I don't think Boeing expects to make money off the 747-8, but they also don't expect to lose money, either. I think thier plan is to hurt Airbus as much as they can. If they can undermine the A380 and take needed sales away from Airbus, Airbus will be in deep shit...although the European nations will probably continue to bail then out. It's already cost Airbus a lot to develope the A380, and they've already extended the delevery dates out several times. Boeing won't have the developement costs that Airbus has, all they have to do is slightly redesign the 747. I think this makes good business sense for Boeing.

-Pilot

[The Frenchman 0]

Silly americans and their silly little planes..

Bah! If it wasn't for us, you would be flying this to visit the Americas:

And yes, those are some freaky wings.

[Akira 0]

In regards to SWA, you also forgot their perfection of the 10 minute turnaround. Where a mainline carrier will take anywhere from 30-60 minutes turning around one airplane, SWA gets in, unloads, and is back out again. Aircraft do not make money on the ground. SWA's corporate culture has made that posssible, and the legacy carriers need to start taking note. Pilots, rampies, flight attendants, and definitely management need to understand they work for the same goal...the financial success of the airline. The "Us and Them" attitude within the legacy carrier corporate structure has led to a lot of their problems.

I would have to agree that Boeing could have done without McD, as at the time McD had certainly no commercial planes selling that were worthy of note. Boeing on the other hand was doing just fine. Instead of sinking money into McD they should have sent it to engineering and development.

I agree also that Boeing should have kept the 757 around. While I wasn't a fan of the 3-3 configuration, that thing was ridiculously overpowered and felt like a rocket. I only rode on one once, and I loved it.

The aviation industry continues to be in a state of flux since 9/11, and indication are it will still get worse. Independance Air tanked. Delta, United, and Northwest have been teetering on the brink of tanking. The airline I work for, Shuttle America, is a part of the Republic Holdings company. You may recognize Republic as one of the companies that bailed out US Airways...Republic to the tune of something like $250 million. With that infusion we aquired all the planes of the US Airways connection service, the EMB-170 (the plane pictured is most likely one of my companies...Chautauqua Airlines, Shuttle America, or Republic Airlines). This plane is an amazing plane and is pushing into the envelope of the 737. It's certified as a regional jet, but it is not. We fly all over the US under legacy titles (United Express, American Eagle, US Airways Express, Delta Connection). We will be receiving 20 more 170's at the end of the month and will likely be purchasing 190's as well. There is talk of melding all three airlines into one independant Republic Airlines in the not too distant future, though being so far from management its hard to tell. This is the new paradigm of aviation, not only domestic but international. Smaller, more efficient long-range planes that can go point-to-point with direct service.

That is why I'm not sold on Airbus' vision of the aviation industry, and lean more towards Boeing.

[Student Pilot 0]

I really do hate SWA, but even I have to admit they are doing everything right. SWA's model of direct route systems is the way of the future. Hub and Spoke systems aren't as productive and can't make as much money as the direct route system.

Quote[/b] ]as at the time McD had certainly no commercial planes selling that were worthy of note.

The MD-90 was looking to be a good plane, and a worthy successor to the MD-80 and DC-9. God I love the DC-9. My first plane ride was on one of those. Oh the memories.

*sniff*

Quote[/b] ]I agree also that Boeing should have kept the 757 around. While I wasn't a fan of the 3-3 configuration, that thing was ridiculously overpowered and felt like a rocket. I only rode on one once, and I loved it.

The 757 is, IMHO, the best commercial airplane in it's class. You are never on the runway long in that plane. Not only is it's performance second to none, it just has a certain look about it, a look that says 'I want to fly'.

Quote[/b] ]This is the new paradigm of aviation, not only domestic but international. Smaller, more efficient long-range planes that can go point-to-point with direct service.

That is the main thing, and you are absolutely right. Airbus is building the A380 based on an outdated idea of commercial aviation. The world of aviation will look more like Southwest in the future, not United, American or USAirways. The only area the A380 will be useful in is freight, and Boeing is the king of the freight market.

-Pilot