Qantas seems to be more interested in the B747-8 Intercontinental than in the B772LR.
…
It’s easier to quote than to sum up the article. 😮 😉
Boeing’s Intercontinental flies into the limelight
The longer range and more fuel-efficient 747-8 may just be what airlines such as Qantas are looking for, writes Geoffrey Thomas
——————————————————————————–May 26, 2006
BOEING’S newest version of its 747 is turning heads at Qantas as the airline searches for solutions to reduce fuel costs while increasing the range capability of its fleet.
Qantas had been examining the Boeing 777-200LR, which can fly from London to Sydney with a payload of 250 passengers, but the return journey requires a fuel stop in Singapore for at least half the year because of headwinds.According to Qantas sources, the 777 has been dropped from consideration.
Also on the airline’s radar is Sydney-Dallas non-stop capability to link into alliance partner American Airlines’ headquarters and largest hub.
Last week, Boeing advised Qantas that the latest wind-tunnel tests for its new 747-8 Intercontinental have shown that the aircraft would have greater range than originally thought and would be capable of flying Dallas-Sydney all year.
For Qantas, which is facing soaring fuel costs, the 747-8 would appear to be a good solution, offering more range capability while cutting fuel costs.
While the A380, which will start operations for Qantas in May next year, will replace some 747s, Qantas is not planning to replace its older 747-300s and -400s with A380s.
Boeing is promising a dramatic performance improvement with the 747-8 over earlier 747 models.
According to Jeff Peace, vice-president and program manager for 747, the “747-8 burns 40 per cent less fuel than the first 747 and is 30 per cent quieter than the 747-400s in service with Qantas”.
Boeing marketing vice-president Randy Baseler says: “Why invest in an A380 (which Boeing claims involves 25 per cent higher trip costs) when the 747-8 will deliver 3 per cent lower seat-mile costs?”
The economics form a major part of the sales pitch and the new model has some significant advantages, says Baseler.
He claims the 747-8 “will burn 13 per cent less fuel per seat than a 416-seat 747-400 and 12 per cent less than a 542-seat A380” – figures that Airbus strongly disputes.
Key to that performance is the 66,500 pound thrust General Electric GEnx derived from the 787 program.
Aside from the dramatic fuel efficiency of the engine, Baseler says the key to the 747-8’s fuel economy is structural efficiency, with “an operating empty weight of 985 pounds per passenger compared to 1161 pounds for the A380” making the A380 17.9 per cent heavier per seat.
He concedes that Airbus’s own figures are lower but still 11.3 per cent heavier than the 747-8.
The A380 was designed from the outset to be stretched to carry up to 1000 passengers in an all-economy layout or 650 mixed-class, and thus carries extra weight and a large wing for that mission.
By comparison, the 747-8 wing and structure are optimised for its capability of 450-480 passengers in a mixed-class configuration.
While Baseler says that the A380 has an advantage with its all-new wing, he argues that Boeing is closing the gap with work from the 777 and 787 programs.
Jeff Peace adds that “while the 747-8 wing is (internally) structurally the same it is aerodynamically all new”. The 747-8 has raked wingtips borrowed from the 777-300ER/-200LR program and now sports double-slotted inboard flaps and single-slotted outboard flaps.
The outboard wing has been re-lofted and the flap tracks and fairings redesigned.
Peace also says that Boeing is also looking at fly-by-wire control for a number of the 747-8’s control surfaces.
Wheels, tires and brakes from the 777 complete the structural enhancements.
The 747-8 is the first fuselage stretch of the 747 – possibly a testament to the fact that the aircraft that ushered in the jumbo era was way too big in 1970.
Since then, airlines have expanded its capacity by shrinking the seating from nine across with 34 inch pitch to today’s 10 across with 31/32 inch pitch, while Boeing tossed in a bit more room upstairs on the -300 and -400 versions.
Offsetting the squeeze in the back has been the trend in the last few years to add beds in both first and business class, cutting capacity in the front and driving a desire for more floor space.
To meet this demand, the 747-8 Intercontinental will have an 11.7ft stretch and the cargo model will be lengthened by 18.3ft. The passenger model will be able to carry up to 15 per cent more passengers and 21 per cent more cargo than the 747-400 and fly 1150 nautical miles (2127km) farther to 8300 nautical (15,355km). This gives it Dallas-Sydney, even London-Perth, capability.
Boeing has done considerable work on the interior which needed a facelift to bring it up to date with current design trends.
It will have an entry more like that of a cruise ship, with the staircase offset to the far side of the main-deck cabin.
The entry area also features a domed ceiling and a concierge station that doubles as a mini lounge during the flight.
From the 777 comes the sculptured interior that gives passengers 15 per cent more storage space, while those on the popular upper deck will get a 100 per cent increase in storage space.
Boeing is adding 777 windows to give a little more window area. The 747-8 will have LED mood lighting, lighter 787 interior components and 787 space-age toilets, and it will be e-enabled.
The currently vacant crown space in the 747 has come in for special attention, with the manufacturer proposing to use the area for beds, a business centre, or more likely storage for galley carts.
Boeing sees other advantages in the 747’s layout. The aircraft has First Class in the nose area where the serenity cannot be compromised by boarding passengers, which leads to the industry saying: “only on the 747, First Class passengers always turn left”.
That serenity is extremely important to airlines such as Qantas, Singapore Airlines and Cathay Pacific, which are all taking a long hard look at the 747-8.
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.
The company expects the 747-8 to make its first flight in 2008.
It puts the market at 450 aircraft over the next 20 years, of which 300 will be freighters.
Source: http://www.theaustralian.news.com – Boeing’s Intercontinental flies into the limelight
By: steve rowell - 3rd June 2006 at 01:02
100% of the people I know say that sitting in an aircraft for more than 10 hours is horror. Maybe I don’t know so many hard-core business people. So, yes, it may be unqualified. 😀
I’ve crossed the pond from Sydney to LAX many a time in business class ( a trip than can take up to sixteen hours non-stop ) and believe me it’s something to be endured rather than enjoyed
By: Bmused55 - 1st June 2006 at 23:48
100% of the people I know say that sitting in an aircraft for more than 10 hours is horror. Maybe I don’t know so many hard-core business people. So, yes, it may be unqualified. 😀
Well atleast you can see that and admit it 😉
By: Schorsch - 1st June 2006 at 19:07
You still do now qualify your claim that only business pax would endure 20 hours on a flight. Please do so or atleast admit it was an unqualified opinion.
100% of the people I know say that sitting in an aircraft for more than 10 hours is horror. Maybe I don’t know so many hard-core business people. So, yes, it may be unqualified. 😀
By: Bmused55 - 1st June 2006 at 17:12
You still do now qualify your claim that only business pax would endure 20 hours on a flight. Please do so or atleast admit it was an unqualified opinion.
Your figures may be correct, I do not know. But what I can say is the 772LR and A345s are nich aircraft. They were not meant to be ordered in vast numbers. Their respective development costs are minimal on the whole scheme of it all.
There is a niche market for long range non stop flights. The aircraft that will be able to fly the furthest with the most payload will win out on that. For each seat or cubic metre of the cargo hold filled, you mitigate the cost of the extra fuel.
By: Schorsch - 1st June 2006 at 10:36
There is nothing to tell us the A380 is the “perfect” plane just yet. After a year or so in commercial ops, we’ll be better placed to suggest such. For now we only have what Airbus claim, and sadly we all know how much salt that usualy requires.
Yeah yeah, I take some figures from that can be considered reliable: For example the payload, the passenger capacity and the range. It still is (even if I put a 10% penalty on the Airbus figures) the most efficient aircraft for long-range hub-to-hub connections. You won’t find any serious engineer at Boeing who doubts that, Boeing normally challenges the nessecity of such a hub-aircraft.
Can you perhaps link us to research that shows pax would loathe a 20 hour flight? Hundreds of them endure a near 24 hour transit time between Australia and London each day. Perhaps the non stop service would provide for a great chance to get a sound sleep, rather than being woken up for the stop over.
Also, what evidence do you have to show us that an indirect stop over flight is more efficient that a direct non stopper? The a345 is not a reliable indicator, given the fact that it is limited to 200 seats on anything over 15 hours I believe.
I keep it simple. The aircraft that flies from London to Sidney will have to carry the pound of fuel, which is burned during approach, the whole way from London. Hence a very-long-range aircraft is burning fuel, just to carry fuel. That is a basic problem of every aircraft.
My aircraft has a zero-fuel-weight of 180 tons. I have 150 tons fuel and I fly 17.000km. I land with 10 tons of fuel. My average weight is hence:
180 + 10 + 140/2 = 260 tons.
Now I fly only half of the range, I need only 77 tons of fuel (i have slightly less reserve (7 tons)). My average weight now:
180 + 7 + 70/2 = 222 tons
We see that the stop-over effectively saves 38 tons of weight.
And now important remark, especially for Mr Bmused55: This is not only for Boeing aircraft. No, it even is true for Airbus aircraft. Yes, a A340-500 has the same problem. And you can see that airlines see this problem by not ordering the B777LR and the A340-500 in large numbers.
By: steve rowell - 31st May 2006 at 01:42
Qantas has been a loyal Boeing customer since the late fifties and i was surprised when they chose the A380, A330 and the A320 for it’s ancillary Jetstar. I suppose it all comes down to what the bean counters say these days
By: Bmused55 - 30th May 2006 at 15:45
On the other hand is the A380 the best aircraft for direct hub-tu-hub operations. The range is sufficient, especially when considering the growth to models like the -800R or the -900 or -900R. With the B747-8 there is no possibility to grow.
Another interesting point is the B777LR for direct Sidney-London. I always considered this as pointless due to the inherent disadvantage of very longe range aircraft. But I think Qantas needs to compete with Middle East airlines making a stop in Dubai. That costs two hours, but is much more efficient and may win by offering additional services in Dubai (shopping, etc). Only the tough business guys want to sit 20 hours in one aircraft.
There is nothing to tell us the A380 is the “perfect” plane just yet. After a year or so in commercial ops, we’ll be better placed to suggest such. For now we only have what Airbus claim, and sadly we all know how much salt that usualy requires.
Also, what 20 hour flights are in operation right now? What are the load factors, and what percentage of the total passenger count is business pax?
Can you perhaps link us to research that shows pax would loathe a 20 hour flight? Hundreds of them endure a near 24 hour transit time between Australia and London each day. Perhaps the non stop service would provide for a great chance to get a sound sleep, rather than being woken up for the stop over.
Also, what evidence do you have to show us that an indirect stop over flight is more efficient that a direct non stopper? The a345 is not a reliable indicator, given the fact that it is limited to 200 seats on anything over 15 hours I believe.
By: Schorsch - 30th May 2006 at 10:12
QF has had a long relationship with the 747, and with Boeing long-haul aircraft in general. I can see them being a potential launch customer for the pax 748, along with BA. I don’t see why an airline like QF, with an extensive global network, can’t operate both the 748 and the A380.
On the other hand is the A380 the best aircraft for direct hub-tu-hub operations. The range is sufficient, especially when considering the growth to models like the -800R or the -900 or -900R. With the B747-8 there is no possibility to grow.
Another interesting point is the B777LR for direct Sidney-London. I always considered this as pointless due to the inherent disadvantage of very longe range aircraft. But I think Qantas needs to compete with Middle East airlines making a stop in Dubai. That costs two hours, but is much more efficient and may win by offering additional services in Dubai (shopping, etc). Only the tough business guys want to sit 20 hours in one aircraft.
By: Bmused55 - 26th May 2006 at 18:41
QF has had a long relationship with the 747, and with Boeing long-haul aircraft in general. I can see them being a potential launch customer for the pax 748, along with BA. I don’t see why an airline like QF, with an extensive global network, can’t operate both the 748 and the A380.
Well you have a point.
I’m just surprised to see them interested in the 748 at all.
By: greekdude1 - 26th May 2006 at 17:35
QF has had a long relationship with the 747, and with Boeing long-haul aircraft in general. I can see them being a potential launch customer for the pax 748, along with BA. I don’t see why an airline like QF, with an extensive global network, can’t operate both the 748 and the A380.
By: Bmused55 - 26th May 2006 at 12:12
The 748 and the A380?!
hmmmm
Sign In
May 26, 2006 at 11:58 am