Boeing 747: how much longer?

[airindia787]

I am asking this question because, I was looking at photos of the 747 on Airliners.net and i am wondering how much longer i am going to see it in the sky.

[bbeliko]

at least 15-20 years with the 748I PAX.
More than that with the freighters

[tuy]

Don't worry about them disappearing from the skies anytime soon. They are still in production and have a long lifespan.

[ThrashATL]

There are still DC-3's and B-52's making themselves useful and the 747 wasn't even a gleam in Boeing's eye when those were built.

[mikeelm]

I see no reason why they would even stop production on them.

The 747's the largest commerical jet planes and what else is going to take their place? I don't understand why they keep making these 777's 787's etc.

many of these smaller aircrafts are probably about the same size as the old 707's and 727's. How come they didn't keep those going and make whatever improvments they could instead of creating a whole new plane?

[The Chemist]

Originally Posted by mikeelm

I see no reason why they would even stop production on them.

The 747's the largest commerical jet planes and what else is going to take their place? I don't understand why they keep making these 777's 787's etc.

many of these smaller aircrafts are probably about the same size as the old 707's and 727's. How come they didn't keep those going and make whatever improvments they could instead of creating a whole new plane?

The A380 is bigger than the 747. The reason 777s, 787s, A330s, A340s, A380s, etc are being built is because they are much more efficient planes. In this time of high gas prices, efficiency is the key to airline operations - the less fuel they burn, the less money they cost and the more money an airline can make on a flight.

[Daquan13]

Originally Posted by mikeelm

I see no reason why they would even stop production on them.

The 747's the largest commerical jet planes and what else is going to take their place? I don't understand why they keep making these 777's 787's etc.

many of these smaller aircrafts are probably about the same size as the old 707's and 727's. How come they didn't keep those going and make whatever improvments they could instead of creating a whole new plane?

Hello. The A-380 is now the world's largest jumbo jetliner. The 777 is the world's largest and most powerful twin-isle twin-jet airliner. Both the 777 and 787 are money makers for Boeing.

What do you think the 787 Dreamliner is? Something that's been flying since the dawning of the Jet Age?

The 777 and 787 Dreamliner and the 747-8, and all of their varients, along with the Next-Generation 737, are and will be Boeing's most fuel-efficient aircraft. They are continuously being improved upon to keep the airlines in step with fuel / energy savings.

And yes, they will be joined by the 747-8 in both passenger and freighter variants. Boeing intends to stick with the plane because it has done so well in the past 35 years, all variants combined.

[beanhead4529]

i don't expect the 747 to be phased out in the next 100 years. even though the A380 is bigger, only a handful of airpots in the world are equipped to handle it. i don't think many airports are willing to shell out the extra dough to be A380 compatible when most are already capable of handling the 747 even though it carries about 100-200 more people.

[Montreal (438)]

I know Montreal is ready and Air France is going to start flying them here next year.

[SFUVancouver]

Re: A380. YVR (Vancouver) has four or six A380 gates ready, or nearly ready, to capitalise on trans-Pacific service that plane will be seeing shortly.

Re: 747. I also think modern variations of the 747 fleet will be in service well into the second half of this century. When you think about the early 747s and compare them with the modern iterations, well they're the same plane in name only. There is no reason why the model line won't continue to be modified and upgraded to take advantage of the state of the art and respond to the needs of airlines.

[Daquan13]

Here's something that's a well-known fact;

The 747 was the only Boeing jetliner to date having never had its fuselage stretched ever. Only the upper deck with the introduction of the 747-300 (formerly called the 747-SUD for stretched upper deck).

The making of the -8 will be the first time in history that the plane will be stretched.

[urbanflyer]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

Re: A380. YVR (Vancouver) has four or six A380 gates ready, or nearly ready, to capitalise on trans-Pacific service that plane will be seeing shortly.

Re: 747. I also think modern variations of the 747 fleet will be in service well into the second half of this century. When you think about the early 747s and compare them with the modern iterations, well they're the same plane in name only.

YVR planners are overly optimistic. The heaviest transpacific traffic into YVR is from HKG with Cathay Pacific's soon to be 3 daily 744 flights. Cathay is unlikely to order the A380 at this point and is replacing some 744s now with the 777-300ER. The A380 was designed for heavy traffic on trunk routes between major hubs. It's much more likely that carriers such as CX will operate the 773ER into smaller airports like YVR to maximize yield and maintain schedule convenience for passengers.

I agree with your second part in that a common criticism of the 747 is that it's a "40+ year-old design". The baseline 747 is that old yes, but today's 747 has little in common with the original other than dimensions. Passenger use of the 747 will continue to diminish as airlines continue to trim their costs by only operating longhaul twinjets, but we're likely to see 747s flying as freighters for at least the first third of this century.

Originally Posted by mikeelm

]The 747's the largest commerical jet planes and what else is going to take their place? I don't understand why they keep making these 777's 787's etc.

many of these smaller aircrafts are probably about the same size as the old 707's and 727's. How come they didn't keep those going and make whatever improvments they could instead of creating a whole new plane?

The short answer to why 777s and 787s are being made is that markets have matured, there's more competition now than ever, and it simply isn't feasible to fly very large aircraft once or twice a day into big hubs anymore. Point to point, higher frequency travel is on the rise and the 747 is too large and has too high of an hourly operating cost to serve such markets. This will be the Achilles heel for the A380 as well - four engines are simply too many for today's fuel costs. Many of the carriers that have ordered the A380 are not running on tight finances and don't have the need to be as cost conscious as others.

Powerful and operationally flexible twinjets are the future and they're here to stay.

As for the latter comment, the 777 and 787 are considerably larger than the 707 and 727. The 777-200ER has a maximum takeoff weight nearly double that of the legacy version of the 707, the -320C.

The 707 was impossible to refine further given both its wing design and short landing gear. A landing gear redesign wasn't possible because it would've meant relocating the center fuel tank and completely altering the fuselage structure.

The 727 was designed for specific short and medium haul missions and was unsuitable for further refinement beyond the -200 model. Further improvement would have been unjustifiably expensive as the 727 had a rather complex wing design to allow it to operate efficiently from smaller runways. The 757 was a massive improvement over the 727 due to its ability to operate in various mission profiles with much improved efficiency.

[The Chemist]

The short answer to why 777s and 787s are being made is that markets have matured, there's more competition now than ever, and it simply isn't feasible to fly very large aircraft once or twice a day into big hubs anymore. Point to point, higher frequency travel is on the rise and the 747 is too large and has too high of an hourly operating cost to serve such markets. This will be the Achilles heel for the A380 as well - four engines are simply too many for today's fuel costs. Many of the carriers that have ordered the A380 are not running on tight finances and don't have the need to be as cost conscious as others.

That's not necessarily true. The A380 may have four engines, but it also carries a lot more people than previous airliners - so the fuel efficiency per seat is better than any other plane flying. Of course it'll have to serve routes where it's always full, but there are plenty of routes that have significant enough passenger traffic for the A380 to be very profitable.

Airports that are already near capacity in terms of aircraft movements (think places like LHR, LAX, HKG, NRT, etc) will need the extra capacity to be provided by larger aircraft, and the A380 will fill this role. I remain optimistic about the future prospects for the 380 - once it starts flying commercially this fall, I expect more airlines will order it for their operations (most notably Cathay Pacific and British Airways).

[Daquan13]

Originally Posted by urbanflyer

YVR planners are overly optimistic. The heaviest transpacific traffic into YVR is from HKG with Cathay Pacific's soon to be 3 daily 744 flights. Cathay is unlikely to order the A380 at this point and is replacing some 744s now with the 777-300ER. The A380 was designed for heavy traffic on trunk routes between major hubs. It's much more likely that carriers such as CX will operate the 773ER into smaller airports like YVR to maximize yield and maintain schedule convenience for passengers.

I agree with your second part in that a common criticism of the 747 is that it's a "40+ year-old design". The baseline 747 is that old yes, but today's 747 has little in common with the original other than dimensions. Passenger use of the 747 will continue to diminish as airlines continue to trim their costs by only operating longhaul twinjets, but we're likely to see 747s flying as freighters for at least the first third of this century.



The short answer to why 777s and 787s are being made is that markets have matured, there's more competition now than ever, and it simply isn't feasible to fly very large aircraft once or twice a day into big hubs anymore. Point to point, higher frequency travel is on the rise and the 747 is too large and has too high of an hourly operating cost to serve such markets. This will be the Achilles heel for the A380 as well - four engines are simply too many for today's fuel costs. Many of the carriers that have ordered the A380 are not running on tight finances and don't have the need to be as cost conscious as others.

Powerful and operationally flexible twinjets are the future and they're here to stay.

As for the latter comment, the 777 and 787 are considerably larger than the 707 and 727. The 777-200ER has a maximum takeoff weight nearly double that of the legacy version of the 707, the -320C.

The 707 was impossible to refine further given both its wing design and short landing gear. A landing gear redesign wasn't possible because it would've meant relocating the center fuel tank and completely altering the fuselage structure.

The 727 was designed for specific short and medium haul missions and was unsuitable for further refinement beyond the -200 model. Further improvement would have been unjustifiably expensive as the 727 had a rather complex wing design to allow it to operate efficiently from smaller runways. The 757 was a massive improvement over the 727 due to its ability to operate in various mission profiles with much improved efficiency.

Boeing engineers had once contemplated stretching the 727 once more to make it the 727-300. It was to have two larger tail-mounted engines, one on each side with the center intake plugged. Instead, the co. had elected to make the 757. And even THAT plane was going to have some of the things that the 727 had, such as the T-tail and nose. But then, Boeing has decided to build the plane based on the outside features of the 767.

The 777 was going to be a 3-holer (tri-jet) back in the mid '70s when the 767 and 757 were in their design stages. Boeing had toyed around with a DC-10 look-alike for the 777, but had then opted for the famous 2-motor concept, mainly because the "bango" design for the center engine intake which the DC-10 and MD-11 have, would have been too expensive to make.

The 777 program was then put off for about twelve years until around '88 - '89 when the airlines began seeking a new more fuel-efficient jetliner from Boeing.

[WonderlandPark]

Agree with The Chemist: the A380 & 747-8i have their places in a profitable airline, there are plenty of point to point connections with large population bases to support them. Cost per seat is comparable to the 787. If the seats are filled, than the airline comes out in fine shape.

But I disagree with Urbanflyer, I think the A380 will be a "hit" in YVR because there really are only 2 times a day when it makes sense to depart for Asia. This isn't a route like ORD-JFK, where you want tons of different departure times. An early morning and a late day arrival make the most sense, no need for the extra flight crews and airframes for around the clock departures and arrivals.

[Montreal (438)]

Originally Posted by beanhead4529

i don't expect the 747 to be phased out in the next 100 years. even though the A380 is bigger, only a handful of airpots in the world are equipped to handle it. i don't think many airports are willing to shell out the extra dough to be A380 compatible when most are already capable of handling the 747 even though it carries about 100-200 more people.

Do you have a list of which airports are ready?

[Daquan13]

Well, the plane landed in LAX and JFK with no problems. And didn't the craft use a jetbridge at one of the airport gaterooms?

I think IAD can accommodate it as well as SFO.

[nergie]

Originally Posted by Daquan13

Well, the plane landed in LAX and JFK with no problems. And didn't the craft use a jetbridge at one of the airport gaterooms?

I think IAD can accommodate it as well as SFO.

The plane also landed at ORD

[urbanflyer]

Where the plane lands is irrelevant. Any runway with suitable weight capacity can handle the A380 - parking is the only problem.

[mikeelm]

Originally Posted by The Chemist

The A380 is bigger than the 747. The reason 777s, 787s, A330s, A340s, A380s, etc are being built is because they are much more efficient planes. In this time of high gas prices, efficiency is the key to airline operations - the less fuel they burn, the less money they cost and the more money an airline can make on a flight.

Now how can the A380 be larger than the 747?


I've just seen footage of both planes on youtube and 747 still looks bigger.