Todos
← Back to Squawk list
Does the Boeing 747 Have a Future?
There are few who can make a case against the Boeing 747 as the most majestic and beautiful airliner in the sky. (www.airlinereporter.com) Más...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
The big fact is that twins can operate safely with 1 engine. Engine failures are rare, especially at cruise, dual engine failure almost impossible. If a malfunction does occurr, such as the air France a330 over the south Atlantic, it is not the engines to blame, but other factors, in that case pilot error
I found my first experience of jet aircraft with the great B707 and when Airbus created the A340 I thought it a tribute to jet transport as it is a good looking machine. It served well at the time and still does for many airlines that cannot move on to or trust the big twin engined aircraft either due to purchase costs or passenger perception of 4 engines over 2 engines over large oceanic routes.
I personally will never board a B777/A350/B787/B767/B757/A330 if a 4 Engined option is available when booking an Oceanic trip. Ships float whilst airplanes drop if they lose engines in flight and frankly, 4 is always better than 2 in such circumstances. I may be talking rubbish to some of you but this how I feel and my flying days may be coming to and end soon as a result ... ho hum!!
I personally will never board a B777/A350/B787/B767/B757/A330 if a 4 Engined option is available when booking an Oceanic trip. Ships float whilst airplanes drop if they lose engines in flight and frankly, 4 is always better than 2 in such circumstances. I may be talking rubbish to some of you but this how I feel and my flying days may be coming to and end soon as a result ... ho hum!!
You'll have some A380, and 747 and A340. Your itinerary choices will just be limited. They'll keep using them during their useful economic life. Then convert them for cargo.
You might have to take a liking to Emirates to fly you between continents. Hope you like stopping in Dubai. You might get to know the place.
Not sure how long that A380 phenomenon will last elsewhere. Some airlines are already struggling to find routes to sustain the A380's capacity, with barely 100 having been delivered.
You might have to take a liking to Emirates to fly you between continents. Hope you like stopping in Dubai. You might get to know the place.
Not sure how long that A380 phenomenon will last elsewhere. Some airlines are already struggling to find routes to sustain the A380's capacity, with barely 100 having been delivered.
As much as I like the A380, I fear that Emirates will find themselves with half the world fleet with nothing to replace them with as they begin to age and with no after market for the aircraft and nothing to replace them with. At least with the B747s one can upgrade to the -800s or potentially a -900 ( full upper deck design maybe?) and a healthy second user market for the older versions that airlines can afford to aquire even on a short lease basis etc.
I believe that the A380 was designed in part with airline's desire to operate a 'ocean liner' of the sky rather than a 1000 seat cattle truck for hub - to - hub purposes.
I believe that the A380 was designed in part with airline's desire to operate a 'ocean liner' of the sky rather than a 1000 seat cattle truck for hub - to - hub purposes.
I like your optimism (747-9). The 747 has been a beautiful iconic bird.
But I am bearish on all 4-engined planes.
They've got to sell some 8's before they ever get planning 9's. (or Airbus has to sell a boat load of A380s). I don't see either happening in large numbers.
We may get a larger new twin 777, with 787 technology, next decade (as engine technology progresses to provide the needed thrust and reliability at that size) to reach further up the capacity ladder. That'll really make 4-engines unattractive economically to the carriers.
Maybe, in a decade or two, we may become capacity constrained at mist major sitports and your 747-9 and a stretched A380 may become not only economically combative, but necessary. But that's not the world we live in today.
Though I can't make any promises to how many engines the future 747-9s and future stretch composite A380s might have. But there will be pressure to go twin if technologically feasible.
But I am bearish on all 4-engined planes.
They've got to sell some 8's before they ever get planning 9's. (or Airbus has to sell a boat load of A380s). I don't see either happening in large numbers.
We may get a larger new twin 777, with 787 technology, next decade (as engine technology progresses to provide the needed thrust and reliability at that size) to reach further up the capacity ladder. That'll really make 4-engines unattractive economically to the carriers.
Maybe, in a decade or two, we may become capacity constrained at mist major sitports and your 747-9 and a stretched A380 may become not only economically combative, but necessary. But that's not the world we live in today.
Though I can't make any promises to how many engines the future 747-9s and future stretch composite A380s might have. But there will be pressure to go twin if technologically feasible.
After 13 years of a 707, from FE to Captain, it was daylight/dark going to a 757. We didn't get ours until about 86, after the RR engines got ETOPS certified, and I can tell you that regardless of planning and diversion(no biggie over land) that first trip over the pond was a worrisome ride. That is all that me and everybody on board talked about that whole trip but the bird performed flawlessly. Coming back still carried a little anticipation but not near as much as the one going over. 23 years with it until I retired the first time and never swam or diverted due to engine failure.
Thanks.
That's my point. We've had so many years of reliable twin service, that at some point, ocean crossings won't be an issue anymore. In fact, they aren't. Like you said, we've had decades of twin reliable service.
If we lose one plane someday with decades in between of reliable service, then you can call it luck (or lack thereof). Just hope it's not my flight. But passengers are just not prepared to pay a 20-25% premium on every ticket sold on the off-chance that a plane might be lost during ETOPS, some number of decades later.
The industry can withstand a loss. Just not to the 787. Not now anyways. That could be a fatal blow to the 787, to Boeing, and to innovation in aviation for a good long while.
But, twins are the future. No doubt about it.
That's my point. We've had so many years of reliable twin service, that at some point, ocean crossings won't be an issue anymore. In fact, they aren't. Like you said, we've had decades of twin reliable service.
If we lose one plane someday with decades in between of reliable service, then you can call it luck (or lack thereof). Just hope it's not my flight. But passengers are just not prepared to pay a 20-25% premium on every ticket sold on the off-chance that a plane might be lost during ETOPS, some number of decades later.
The industry can withstand a loss. Just not to the 787. Not now anyways. That could be a fatal blow to the 787, to Boeing, and to innovation in aviation for a good long while.
But, twins are the future. No doubt about it.
Okay Gentlemen we have covered the reliability and economics of the big twins and I agree with the logic of the argument. The paying public will always accept what they are told if the ticket price is low enough but when that rare day comes, and it certainly shall if one accepts the laws of statistics and fate, one of these aircraft fails to arrive because of lack of spare engine capacity what becomes of the economic model of operating high capacity long range aircraft on only two engines? Why indeed did Boeing and Airbus continue with the 4 engine design for the B747-800/Airbus A380 and not for the A350/B787?
Airbus deliberately created the A330/340 series because it served multiple options with the same airframe knowing that the A340 had to do something that the A330 could not at that time of development. So may I ask why, in your opinions, did Airbus create the A380 with 4 relatively small and not two of the giant engines that are now carrying the B787 ( time development excepted ) since the possibilities existed at that time to employ such engines!
May I make it clear that I am not questioning the ultimate reliability of the engines themselves given that they are rather simple machines with few moving mechanical parts to go wrong but can one legislate against failure due to foreign object damage, volcanic clouds, software corruption ( assuming each engine is self supporting ) or even if one simply fell off the wing because the bolts were not secured during ground servicing etc.? Would you suddenly find yourself an a B777 wishing for a B747 again? I certainly would because I shall always trust 4 over 2 or go by boat!
Airbus deliberately created the A330/340 series because it served multiple options with the same airframe knowing that the A340 had to do something that the A330 could not at that time of development. So may I ask why, in your opinions, did Airbus create the A380 with 4 relatively small and not two of the giant engines that are now carrying the B787 ( time development excepted ) since the possibilities existed at that time to employ such engines!
May I make it clear that I am not questioning the ultimate reliability of the engines themselves given that they are rather simple machines with few moving mechanical parts to go wrong but can one legislate against failure due to foreign object damage, volcanic clouds, software corruption ( assuming each engine is self supporting ) or even if one simply fell off the wing because the bolts were not secured during ground servicing etc.? Would you suddenly find yourself an a B777 wishing for a B747 again? I certainly would because I shall always trust 4 over 2 or go by boat!
Why do 4's even exist?
Partly as a hedge against problems with the operation of twins, as you have described. But the reliability is there.
2. I accept that there is a distinct possibility of an event that may require a diversion or may result on a crash. But twins have been operating reliably for decades without a catastrophic incident due to ETOPS.
3. As long as there are decades between events, the public will accept the continued use of twins on oceanic an polar routes.
Why does the A380 have 4 engines?
1. The joke is that Aurbus wanted to guarantee that it would be a financial failure for the manufacturer.
2. But partly, they figured they could get the unit costs down to reasonable comparable figure to smaller efficient twins, by making the thing so large that there'd be room for double the seats on 2 decks.
3. Partly, to allow for even larger versions of a stretch A380. It'd be easier to make 4 smaller engines larger as necessaey, than to make 2 gargantuan record-sized engines even larger. These would be by far the largest engines in commercial aviation.
4. Pushing the envelope of engine design may make the project more expensive, cause delays and have th schedule of plane dictated by the schedule of these new engines.
But if you can get the same economics with half the plane and half the passengers. That means that you've got 2 planes that you can fly more flexibly - to 2 places or at different times, etc.
With the A380, you stuck bringing the second half of the plane with you each time, even if the plane is only half sold or less (instead of serving another location or adding frequency instead).
But the twins are more efficient than A380, even if the A380 could be reliably filled (which is often not the case).
Most people fly on twins and don't have any kind of reaction over the numbers of engines. The reliability stats suggest that we shouldn't worry about getting in either a twin or quad airliner.
We should worry much more about getting into a car on the road. Worrying about the safety characteristics of the road vehicles, one travels in, will have a much greater impact on one's safety, rather than worrying about the statistical possibility of an ETOPS-related crash someday maybe, possibly some number of decades from now.
The rare ETOPS-related incident (even if it were to happen) won't change the economics of the twin, because it won't substantially change the reliability. Twins would still be one of the most reliable forms of transportation in existence, having flown for decades on ETOPS routes without reliability issues.
Partly as a hedge against problems with the operation of twins, as you have described. But the reliability is there.
2. I accept that there is a distinct possibility of an event that may require a diversion or may result on a crash. But twins have been operating reliably for decades without a catastrophic incident due to ETOPS.
3. As long as there are decades between events, the public will accept the continued use of twins on oceanic an polar routes.
Why does the A380 have 4 engines?
1. The joke is that Aurbus wanted to guarantee that it would be a financial failure for the manufacturer.
2. But partly, they figured they could get the unit costs down to reasonable comparable figure to smaller efficient twins, by making the thing so large that there'd be room for double the seats on 2 decks.
3. Partly, to allow for even larger versions of a stretch A380. It'd be easier to make 4 smaller engines larger as necessaey, than to make 2 gargantuan record-sized engines even larger. These would be by far the largest engines in commercial aviation.
4. Pushing the envelope of engine design may make the project more expensive, cause delays and have th schedule of plane dictated by the schedule of these new engines.
But if you can get the same economics with half the plane and half the passengers. That means that you've got 2 planes that you can fly more flexibly - to 2 places or at different times, etc.
With the A380, you stuck bringing the second half of the plane with you each time, even if the plane is only half sold or less (instead of serving another location or adding frequency instead).
But the twins are more efficient than A380, even if the A380 could be reliably filled (which is often not the case).
Most people fly on twins and don't have any kind of reaction over the numbers of engines. The reliability stats suggest that we shouldn't worry about getting in either a twin or quad airliner.
We should worry much more about getting into a car on the road. Worrying about the safety characteristics of the road vehicles, one travels in, will have a much greater impact on one's safety, rather than worrying about the statistical possibility of an ETOPS-related crash someday maybe, possibly some number of decades from now.
The rare ETOPS-related incident (even if it were to happen) won't change the economics of the twin, because it won't substantially change the reliability. Twins would still be one of the most reliable forms of transportation in existence, having flown for decades on ETOPS routes without reliability issues.
No amount of reliability will ever change your mind but I think the reason for 4 instead of 2 on the 747 or 380 is probably just sheer size of the engine. The twins are here to stay. Like any transport mode and situation in life, there will always be unplanned happenings, be it an airline crash, a train derailment and burning, or an 18 wheeler crashing on a highway somewhere, but just because one does. They generally don't stop making or operating that equipment. They try and establish a cause and try not to repeat it again. Significant crashes lately have been attributed to human error, not a mechanical problem on the equipment. You must make your own choice.