Replacing the 747-400

Replacing the venerable Boeing 747-400s remaining in passenger service is a prime objective of Boeing and of Airbus. The business case for their respective 747-8Is and A380s rests in large part on this approach, though for Airbus the A380 business case also rests on passenger traffic doubling every 15 years and restricted airport slots.

Replacing the 747-400, in fact, doesn’t leave a lot of room. There are just 306 passenger models remaining in service, including VIPs and government uses, according to data provided Leeham News. There are another 23 747-400C (Combis) remaining in service.

747 In Service Chart

Data at July 2013.

Fully 42 747-400 passenger models are in storage. Many 744 “Ps” have been converted to cargo airplanes, supplementing new-build 747-400Fs (above). The 744Ps in storage and in service are obvious candidates for conversion to freighters, and there are a number of 744Fs in storage ready to return to service when the slow-moving global cargo demand recovers–which has proved to be a maddening slow process.

747 Stored Chart

Date as of July 2013

Airbus has been more successful selling its A380 to 747-400 operators than Boeing has in selling its 747-8I. Airbus has likewise been more successful at selling the aircraft to non-747-400 operators, though the customer quality in several cases was dodgy. Kingfisher Airlines has collapsed and it’s unlikely Hong Kong Airlines will take delivery of the A380, openly talking about swapping these orders for smaller aircraft.

And therein lies the rub.

747 A380 Fleets

Sources: Airbus, Boeing, Ascend at July 2013

Update: Typo on the Lufthansa remaining orders for A380s: 7, not 17.

United Airlines and British Airways said they are down-sizing their 747-400 fleets to the A350-1000, though Boeing is pressing British to buy the 747-8I in a critical campaign. Boeing has targeted Emirates Airlines for the 8I and it wants to sell more to Lufthansa. The former seems to prefer the forthcoming 777-9X, nominally a 406 passenger airplane in three classes, and Lufthansa’s wide-body decision seems more focused on the A350 and the 787 and/or 777X.

With the development of the 777-9X, widely expected to be launched at the Dubai Air Show in November with a huge order from Emirates Airlines, and from others, we expect this to be the death knell for the 747-8I. Market intelligence tells us the 777-9X will have the same seat-mile costs as the 747-8I (and the A380) without the risk of having to fill a large number of extra seats.

While Airbus says the A380 is needed if an airline wants to add capacity at slot-constrained airports–a valid point, in theory–this doesn’t seem to have been the strong catalyst Airbus has claimed for more than a decade: only 262 sales have been firmed up since the program’s first order in 2000. Airlines seem to prefer the lower-risk solution of smaller aircraft and spilling traffic, with the ability to move smaller airplanes to smaller markets.

China Southern Airlines gambled in ordering five A380s on the assumption it would win international routes from Beijing that would support the behemoths. It didn’t, and it has been operating the Airbuses on domestic routes, losing millions of dollars in the process, according to press reports. It’s going to reschedule these aircraft from Guangzhou to Australia in hopes of finding successful markets for the A380s. This vividly illustrates the risks of the Very Large Aircraft and the advantage of buying “small–” a strategy employed by American Airlines under former CEO Robert Crandall, who favored McDonnell Douglas DC-10s and MD-11s to the 747 of the era. The smaller aircraft allowed him to shift the airplanes around easier to adjust for market demand.

The future of the VLA is limited, indeed.

142 Comments on “Replacing the 747-400

  1. It seems the parked 744 passenger and cargo aircraft are the biggest problem for the 747-8F. The 747-400 fleets have growing availability, cheap conversions (e.g. TAECO), lots of spares from parted out aircraft and widely available MRO / crew make them cheap / attractive when the world economy recovers.

    Of course the 747-8i is more efficient then 747-400F. But sometimes good is good enough and $150 million buys you a lot of fuel. How long are you willing to look ahead, 10 or 25 years? The banks will be easier and risks are lower.

    And there are always cowboys using even older aircraft undercutting you. And the pallets don’t complain for additional fuel stops and tight pitches…
    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-4l20qWBkqys/TZlQ8upasHI/AAAAAAAAOSQ/piWMkF66LD4/s1600/wurtsmith6.jpg

  2. United Airlines and British Airways said they are down-sizing their 747-400 fleets to the A350-1000, though Boeing is pressing British to buy the 747-8I in a critical campaign.

    I’m a bit confused regarding British Airways…
    Firstly, they’re already A380 customers, i.e. at least part of their 744 fleet is going to be replaced by those, with some increased capacity on top. So they’re not simply downsizing their 744 fleet to A351.
    Secondly, how come Boeing is pressing BA to buy 747-8i? I thought that chapter was closed with the A380 vs 748 RFP a few years ago… I wouldn’t have any reason to think that another 748 vs A380 RFP at BA was going to have a different result.

    a strategy employed by American Airlines under former CEO Robert Crandall, who favored McDonnell Douglas DC-10s and MD-11s to the 747 of the era.
    This illustrates that VLAs never were everybody’s cup of tea; and yet the 747 managed to succeed as well.

    The future of the VLA is limited, indeed.

    I’m not so sure about this statement. Except in Boeing’s marketing, the 779X is a VLA as well – this seems to generate significant excitement here and elsewhere…

    • Sorry, got mixe up it the quote tags there – here’s that last bit again, properly formatted:

      a strategy employed by American Airlines under former CEO Robert Crandall, who favored McDonnell Douglas DC-10s and MD-11s to the 747 of the era.

      This illustrates that VLAs never were everybody’s cup of tea; and yet the 747 managed to succeed as well.

      The future of the VLA is limited, indeed.

      I’m not so sure about this statement. Except in Boeing’s marketing, the 779X is a VLA as well – this seems to generate significant excitement here and elsewhere…

      • Hmm,
        imho it is not by chance that the moniker “Mini-Jumbo” has been introduced in recent weeks.
        Boeing urgently needs verbal separation to make its case for the 777-9x slot.

      • The environment is much different now.

        Back then, if you wanted a large airplane (300+ seats in 3 class), you had the 747 and only that. If you wanted something that goes long range, you also had the 747 and only that. And if you wanted something large and with four engines, you also only had the 747. It was a monopoly in many of the categories and that’s why it sold so many.

        Fast forward to current time, and you can see how the environment has changed.

  3. “The future of the VLA is limited, indeed.”

    To early to say IMO. Unless you expected them to build 10 a month. If you compare it to the 747, I guess we are in the 1975 of the A380.

    The A380 introduction sofar has been during the deepest economic crises since decades. I think Airbus will build 1000 A380s in the next 25 years of various tbd variants. With margins typical for a good aircraft with no competition.

    Sofar Airbus never anticipated building more then 4 a month. Internally they count 1 A380 delivery equivalent to 7 A320s..

    • Hello. Can you see where the VLA market is NOT limited? Yes it maybe early to tell but the example that Scott gave us about the ex AA exec was pretty telling. The slot constrained jazz is why the VLA will work but the trend is not to go bigger and bigger, but to use and move smaller aircraft around where you need them most and where they will be the most efficient. Just what UA is doing at this very moment. Think, if a twin WB can achieve the same efficiency of the quad WB, or come close, what do you choose? The answer is obvious.

      • A fun guessing game that is hard to see reality is – Guess who will order the next 30 A380’s. A similar game is guess who will order the next 10 748’s.

        I think the 777, 787, and 350 will keep eating at the VLA segment. Yes big planes fly into hubs, but dividing the traffic between hub pairs saves effort in the spokes. Instead of NY-London why not (EHW, Boston, Atlanta, Chicago, or NY) to (London, Paris, AMS, or Frankfurt)

    • The A380 introduction sofar has been during the deepest economic crises since decades.

      You never run out of excuses for why the A380 isn’t selling. The 777 and A350 have continued to sell during the economic crisis.

      • So have the 737 and A320. Your point being?
        In a crisis, you don’t simply open new routes with an A380. You need routes with very good load factors and/or a very high ratio of BC/FC pax to justify the A380.
        These still exist, but there are fewer of them during a crisis.

      • My point being that you can’t blame the global financial crisis for the dismal sales of the A380, which went on sale in 2000, EIGHT years before the GFC.

        And during the GFC, the A350, and 777 far outsold the A380 and 748i.

        What does that tell you?

        The future of the VLA is limited, indeed.

      • But the choice to reduce the risk and increase the flexibility by using smaller jet is due to the bad economy. Everything has reasons and maybe the crisis or forecast of the crisis makes this situation. The reason is we don’t like Jumbos? It is no convincing.

  4. Boeing knows that the end of an era is nigh because the 747 doesn’t pay the bills as it used to. Yes it’s an improved version but it’s till the same design just modified and tweaked. They want to milk it for all its worth before the concede that it cost too much too have the line open with little to no sales. Kinda cant blame them for trying.

    I doubt that BA is listening to Boeing in regards to a 748i sale or package but I’m can almost guess that the 777-9x is being pitched in there somewhere.

    • Boeing knows that the end of an era is nigh because the 747 doesn’t pay the bills as it used to.

      At least the 747 paid the bills at one time, unlike the A380, which will NEVER make a profit.

      • And there you go – from good point to nonsence. “NEVER” is a bold word (not just figuratively 😉
        On the one hand, The Concorde made a profit – it took a while, a lot longer in fact than the horizon of most financial experts, but it paid the bills.

        On the Other the US (global?) airline industry does not turn a profit – does that negatively impact it’s contribution and value to the US economy and society?

        My 2c:
        1) Everything will make a profit if you use enough time
        2) Profit has nothing to do with Value.

        • I don’t know what your definition of profit is, but for me a program has to pay back its development costs, before it can start making a profit. The Concord never made a profit. Neither will the A380.

      • Nice how you will try to lump together an absolute fiasco of an aircraft (748i) with an aircraft that will eventually make money for Airbus in addition to customers. The sales are now about 7:1 in favor of the A380.

      • Nice how you only look at the 748i and not the 748F to come up with your 7:1 ratio. Furthermore the 748 program only cost $5 billion to develop, whereas the A380 cost $25 billion. So which one will make back its development costs faster?

        How are those A380F orders doing?

  5. I believe that Lufthansa has 7 A380s on order not 17.

    No mention of the 77W here? The 777-300ER has been the primary aircraft to replace 747s. CX, SQ, JAL, ANA, AF, etc.

  6. Whether the A380 will prove to be a mistaken attempt to reproduce the cash cow that was the 747 in years gone by, we shall have to wait and see. Maybe it will turn into the same thing in due course. The puzzling thing about this piece is that it brings elements to the discussion but doesn’t really take them to a conclusion. The growth rate in traffic and what that compounds to in future years is a big deal. More regional airport use will take some traffic but big destinations will remain an attractive place and become slot constrained. Also, there are certain times of the day when people want to fly so having a lot more frequencies doesn’t always have the benefit you want. As for Bob Crandall’s approach to American, he did fine but then plenty of people were having success flying 747s at the same time so it doesn’t mean his was the only right answer. Besides, the US market has always had a far larger domestic focus to it.

    The growth in traffic is something that is showing itself across all sectors. The lack of interest in A319 and 737-700 is the same for the 787 and A350 with the bigger variants getting attention and now the 777 is getting even bigger. Traffic will grow without a seismic shock to the transportation sector and even fuel availability will gradually be dealt with.

    The A380 is never going to sell in huge quantities but the 747 at its peak was only 4.5 airframes a month and no-one considered that a problem. We shall see what does happen but assuming everything stays the same is not usually prudent.

  7. Airlines seem to prefer the lower-risk solution of smaller aircraft and spilling traffic…

    What does “spilling traffic” mean?

  8. The problem for both Boeing and Airbus isn’t “A380 versus B748i”…its now practically “A380 & B748i” versus “A350-1000XWB & B77X” (even B787-10X as British Airways stated). As costs for the A35J and B77X become closer to the A380 and B748i, it becomes even more difficult for a company to justify purchasing a larger plane.

    • The structurally efficient and stretched A350-1000 and 777-9X should EIS with state-of-the-art engines a decade and thirteen years, respectively, after the structurally inefficient “A318-version” of the A380-800. Still, the 777-9X, for example, can only then, at best, equal the A388 at 10 across on seat-mile-costs. Is that very impressive? The A388 at 11 across is still “untouchable”.

      IMJ, only when the overall length of the A380 exceeds 80m, by some margin, will the aircraft fully come into its own. Hence, if Airbus was to just go for an “A320-version” of the A380, coupled with engines even more advanced than the GE9X, in addition to 777X-type folding wingtips, they should thus quite easily manage to put clear water between the “large twins” and the A380.

      • There is already plenty of clear water between the 777 and the A380, and the 777 is selling well, while the A380 is not. It appears that seat mile cost is not all that it’s cracked up to be.

      • The A380-800 has 65 percent more floor area than the 777-300ER, which means that space-wise, 250 A388s are equivalent to about 415 77Ws. IMO, that’s the metric that should be used when comparing the sales of the 777-300ER (77W) and the A380-800. The longer-range 777s (77L/77W) were launched in February, 2000, while the A388 was launched in December that same year. Normalised by effective floor-area, 77W sales have been about 70 percent better than the A388 since the year 2000.

      • “Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.”

        Was that supposed to be an insult?

    • The A380 has outsold the B748I about 7:1 eventhough it’s a bigger plane. Trying to somehow lump them together is very misleading.

  9. I don’t understand why people fall back in a big twin vs A380 discussion all the time. As far as I remember raw capacity is a basic selection, maybe the most important criterium for aircraft selection. Not another factor to take into account. VLA operators have big twins too, not instead off..

    Aircraft size has been growing steadily for 100 years. The A380 is just another evolutionairy step.

    “Whether the A380 will prove to be a mistaken attempt to reproduce the cash cow that was the 747 in years gone by, we shall have to wait and see.”

    Will the impressive, advanced A380 ever be allowed to claim success by the people who are/ were proud on the Queen of the skies? Doubts and critics on the A380 may very well be justified, but mostly don’t originate from Asia, the Middle East or Europe.

    • Do you see criticism where there isn’t any? It might be a mistake and it might not. If you read further, you might see I am inclined to think it will be just fine…

    • keesje
      Aircraft size has been growing steadily for 100 years. The A380 is just another evolutionairy step.

      As they say in the mutual fund business, past performance is no guarantee of future returns.

      • True, but this seems to be continuing – look at the dwindling popularity of the 737-700 and A319 (and before them, the 737-600 and A318), the comparatively low sales of the A350-800, the trend of customers converting 787-8 to -9 orders (just like the 767-300 overtook the -200), the 787-10 getting launched, the 777-8X and -9X both slated to be bigger than the 777-300ER, manufacturers like ATR seriously studying 90-seat turboprops…
        There really is no doubt that the average aircraft size is still trending upwards.
        Whether that is going to translate into A380 sales may be debatable, but don’t let us pretend that aircraft sizes are not trending upwards.

      • anfromme,
        It’s kid of silly to extrapolate 737-700 and A318 sales to make the case for the the A380. Furthermore, the 737-800 has far outsold the 737-900, and the A320 has far outsold the A321.

        Whether that is going to translate into A380 sales may be debatable, but don’t let us pretend that aircraft sizes are not trending upwards.

        What’s not debatable is, the A380 is not selling nor is the 748.

        The VLA era is over.

      • “The VLA era is over.”

        I’ll give that statement as much credence as number 43’s “Mission Accomplished” speech. 😉

        Repeating something over and over again doesn’t necessarily make it true.

      • It’s kid of silly to extrapolate 737-700 and A318 sales to make the case for the the A380.

        I think it’s silly that you would think that that’s what I did. I also think that it’s silly to pretend, in an attempt to make a case against the A380, that aircraft sizes are not trending upwards.

        Your statement was “past performance is no guarantee of future returns.” which was a response to keesje’s allegation “Aircraft size has been growing steadily for 100 years.”
        That’s the context in which I was responding, and I was not doing that in an attempt to make the case for the A380 (which I know is pointless anyway as you’re convinced it’s a failure and will always be a failure), which is why I explicitly stated “Whether that is going to translate into A380 sales may be debatable, but don’t let us pretend that aircraft sizes are not trending upwards.”

        Furthermore, the 737-800 has far outsold the 737-900, and the A320 has far outsold the A321.

        Yes, and the 737-800 outsold the -700 and the A320 the A319. Just like the A320/737 have outsold the 777/A330. So?
        You’re effectively countering the statement “Hard Drive sizes in Enterprise Storage Systems are trending upwards” with the statement “But 200GB drives still outsell 500GB drives.”, which is something that only bears a passing relevance to the original statement.
        The reason is that even if the A320 outsells the A321 (and so on…), it doesn’t change the fact that average aircraft sizes are trending upwards, which is also represented in the market shares within the 737 and A320 families, which have continuously shifted in favour of the larger models.
        I did a quick overview of the 737-600/-700/-800/-900(ER) sales by year (I’m pretty sure A318/A319/A320/A321 looks similar, but I don’t have the numbers handy right now), which is pretty clear on this – first row is 1993, last row is 2012.
        Sorry about the formatting… You can see the -700 went from being a major player – consistently above 30% of 737 market share, twice around 50% – to being a dead duck. At the same time, the -800 went from around 50 to 60% 737 share to 60% and even way over 70%. The -900 had the reverse experience of the -700 (thanks to the -900ER), going from usually less than 10% (sometimes 0%) to over 1/3 of all 737 orders. (Numbers exclude BBJ and military variants.)

        -600 -700 -800 900(ER)
        0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00
        0.00 21.43 78.57 0.00
        22.13 30.33 47.54 0.00
        3.57 26.79 69.64 0.00
        3.38 37.68 55.07 3.86
        2.80 33.85 53.11 10.25
        1.31 34.06 63.32 1.31
        0.00 53.57 45.88 0.55
        0.00 27.22 64.50 8.28
        0.00 18.59 80.13 1.28
        0.00 48.40 48.40 3.19
        5.67 32.62 61.70 0.00
        0.94 14.23 78.28 6.55
        0.00 19.74 71.41 8.85
        0.00 9.82 84.17 6.00
        0.00 10.43 75.06 14.51
        0.00 13.87 82.08 4.05
        0.00 6.36 85.17 8.47
        0.00 7.48 58.18 34.35
        0.00 0.00 60.16 39.84

        The VLA era is over.

        Which is of course why the one 77X model that generates any interest (quite a lot of it, actually) is quite firmly in VLA territory, even if Boeing don’t want to call it that so they can continue to pretend that the 77X poses no threat to the 747-8i.

      • Because I was curious myself, here are the same statistics again for the A320 family. Note that numbers for 2010 onwards include NEO as well, as Airbus unfortunately doesn’t list CEO and NEO separately. Consequently, numbers in 2010-2012 may be skewed towards the A320, as many “TBD” were booked as A320s initially. Again, first line is 1993, last line is 2012. Very similar picture to the 737 family – the A319 went down from a pretty steady 20+% (with peaks over 60%) to less than 10% the last three years, while the A320 went from around 40% to over 70%. The A321 not needing quite as long to get going as the 737-900 is the main difference. In 2013 so far, the A321 has captured over 48% of all A320 series orders, by the way (NEO included).

        A318 A319 A320 A321
        00,00 00,00 100,00 00,00
        00,00 44,21 34,74 21,05
        27,03 27,03 35,14 10,81
        00,00 24,26 54,47 21,28
        00,00 65,93 20,33 13,74
        00,00 43,48 44,62 11,90
        29,41 15,93 44,85 9,80
        10,57 30,93 40,72 17,78
        00,00 26,29 56,00 17,71
        00,00 62,98 33,19 3,83
        00,00 28,39 67,10 4,52
        01,43 24,01 64,52 10,04
        04,47 22,44 61,87 11,22
        00,59 37,59 46,36 15,45
        01,42 20,24 73,96 4,38
        -2,75 -2,33 93,64 11,44
        -1,45 15,46 76,81 9,18
        00,00 08,17 79,57 12,26
        -0,22 01,71 90,43 8,09
        00,14 06,36 71,45 22,06

    • “I don’t understand why people fall back in a big twin vs A380 discussion all the time.”

      If you can’t compete change the rules.
      IMHO the faceoff between the 787 attributed P2P business model and A380 allegedly being “only” H2H is in the same league .

  10. If you need 1000 seats a day to London and only claim 2 slots, the 777-9X is too small. If you have one flight a day to a booming Asian city and want to replace your 20 yr old 747 within 5 years. Order a big twin and cut 33% capacity? Simply tell the russians the overfly rights go up & the chinese to make place at the right moment. Double your connection flights?

    IMO people underestimate the right capacity at the right moment is key. Simply upping the frequency is a dream. Not airline network reality.

    IMO United, Delta, CX, ANA and JAL are no if’s but when’s. Complicated theories won’t defy market requirements. Frequency is important, but not defining everything for airlines.

    • keesje
      IMO people underestimate the right capacity at the right moment is key. Simply upping the frequency is a dream. Not airline network reality.

      Then why only 262 firm A380 sales since 2000?

      Complicated theories won’t defy market requirements.

      Indeed!

      • “Then why only 262 firm A380 sales since 2000?”

        Let me explain to you Tom. The A380 is a rather large aircraft. Says twice as large as a A330 or 777. And very expensive too. It has been developed to serve large population areas. As you might have noticed hubs tend to be located in densely populated areas. It was never an Airbus ambition to sell them like hot cakes. Selling / producing about 30-40 per year is the target. Keeping the backlog filled for the next 3-5 years.

        Many expected the A380 to fail. Production would never exceed 100, airlines would have problems filling it up. Only a few airlines would only needed only a few. A Euro prestige project. Overweight, performance shortfalls all around. It can’t cary cargo. It has 4 engines. Passengers wouldn’t notice the difference, Airbus would never make ROI. BA didn’t need it. The 747-8i would curtail its success. The 777-9i will beat it.

        Most of these opinions already proved incorrect. It seems some observers simply have a ever lasting problem with the A380. Wrong birthplace maybe? http://youtu.be/DBgjXTq0Vkc?t=2m30s

        • Oh keesje, I seem to have stuck a nerve.

          It was never an Airbus ambition to sell them like hot cakes.

          Oh really? As recently as 2008, Airbus forecast 1700 VLA sales. Are you telling me they didn’t expect the A380 to get the lions share of that?

          Selling / producing about 30-40 per year is the target. Keeping the backlog filled for the next 3-5 years.

          Then they are failing to meet the target. They have only sold 262 over the last 13 years. That averages out to 20 per yer.

          It seems, some observers, simply have a ever lasting problem accepting reality.

          • Airbus (and Boeing) each assumed a 50% share of the VLA market.

            Of course, the A380 has about 90% of the VLA-P market compared with the 747-8I, a smaller share when sales of the still-in-production 744-P for the same period (from 2000) would be considered.

  11. The original LH order was 20 but was reduced by one, which I understand, was being used as a test plane for a package of improvements to come in 2014. BAs 747 were bought for range rather than capacity so the A350 1000s look a good fit unless the in service performance of the A380 means they take up some of the options when they placed the A380 order in 2007. The CEO of IAG is making positive noises about the B777x.

  12. Having just returned from the Antipodes flying all legs on the 380 The outward trip was with EK which in my view is not the airline it was, returning to London courtesy of SQ which was superb.

    My choice of carrier & aircraft was varied throwing my BA loyalties aside my final selection was airframe based & despite EK’s ability to meet standards the 380 was superb. I walked through the cabin on most sectors & most seats had bums on them, doing a sad in my head count I judged a good 95% capacity.

    It occurs to me what other type could handle this degree of capacity without the carriers demanding rare & highly expensive slots at all of the hubs I flew through.

  13. Is it possible that the 777-300ER has taken over much of the 747-400’s role ?
    http://bit.ly/16EFNDB

    As of today, there are more than 700 orders for the 777-300ER, making it the best selling 777.

    • If we do some quick math we will find for every ten 747-400’s retired (467 manufactured, 141 retired) seven A380’s have entered service. If we use seat counts for the 747-400 as 405 and 555 for the A380 then for every seat taken out of the market by the retirement of a 747-400 it has been replaced on a one to one basis by an A380 entering service.

      From these numbers demand for VLA aircraft has remained flat over the last thirteen years.

  14. Kingfisher is still in the list.
    Virgin Atlantic has 6 orders. It is written 4 in the table. Have they canceled two orders?
    Air Austral is still in the list. Is the airline going to take delivery of those aircraft?
    Will Skymark take delivery of the A380? Same question on Hong Kong.

    • Just because they are “on the list” is meaningless. Show me the money!

      I don’t know which list you are talking about, but Airbus keeps orders on the books long after everyone knows they are dead letters. With the A380, they are particularly hesitant to remove fictions, from their scant order book.

      • Imagine Airbus or Boeing removing orders before its official..

        When will Nigerian Air Arik take delivery of their 747-8i?

  15. Recent 777 sales in all essence took up the slack from to moving A350-1000 EIS to the right.

    The market for VLA has been carefully muddied by Boeing and its attached opinionates towards the smaller 787 capacity range.
    This meme still has to prove itself.
    I would not be too surprised if we see a return towards bigger aircraft after actual use of P2P routing does not work out the way it was advertised to function.

    Some meme are only killed by reality.

      • “Some meme are only killed by reality.”
        Like the meme that there is a very large market for VLA.

        Hang on – you previously went along with “The future of the VLA is limited, indeed.” Now you’re only saying that you don’t believe that the market for VLA is “very large”. A market that’s not very large can still be large enough.
        You also keep firmly avoiding adressing the fact that the 779X is firmly in VLA territory in all but Boeing PR.

      • you previously went along with “The future of the VLA is limited, indeed.” Now you’re only saying that you don’t believe that the market for VLA is “very large”.

        And may I add that I picked up the sound of goalposts being moved there?

    • the 777-9X will for sure have lower seatmile costs than the A380 and the B747-8I.

      Do not forget that if the A350-1000 is finally built and meets the promised performance then it will have much better seat mile cost than the A380. If I were an airline I would always ask both aircraft to be compared in the same RFP.

    • @keesje

      According to AspireAviation, the SFC is along the lines of 10%.

      “a new General Electric GE9X engine that reduces specific fuel consumption (SFC) by 10%.”

      Also, while a heavier wing, it will be larger:

      “(folded wing) will add 30m² (322.9ft²) wing area to the 777-300ER’s 436.8m² and contribute to a 12% better lift-to-drag (L/D) ratio. ”

      Add the extra carbo capabilities:

      “76.48m long 777-9X will also feature an unprecedentedly large revenue cargo volume from today’s 777-300ER”

      Finally, Tim Clark has already expressed his desire to buy >100-150 frames. Not “too little too late” if you ask me. 🙂

      • “According to AspireAviation, the SFC is along the lines of 10%.”

        The 6 to 8% efficiency improvement is a GE target from 2012. I guess I’ll stick with that. You can’t accuse Aspire of being too critical on Boeings portfolio.

        If think cargo capability on long long isn’t restricted by volume but by lift. The reduced power of the GE9X vs the GE90-11X sure isn’t gonna help in that respect.

  16. One thing for certain, 747’s won’t be replaced one-for-one, by A380’s.

  17. Rudy Hillinga Why is filling out these two lines a new equirement every time I write somethingScott?

    At the risk of repeating myself, pls. remember that the 747 was appr.
    300% bigger than the 707/DC8s it was replacing in the late 60’s!
    The A380, however, in only about 30% bigger than most of the big a/ps
    it will be replacing and @11 abreast, it beats them all in seat-mile cost!
    Go figure the future of the A380 AND it’s stretched version and you’ll
    see a pretty good future for the a/p, because there will be no competition
    for it, the dev’t costs having been absorbed a long time ago and unless
    Boeing finally comes out with a viable BWB soon, I see the A380STR
    being around for a very long time, just like the 747!

    • with the 777x and a350 coing I would suggest in 2020 the a380 is going to be in the same place the 747 was in the early 2000’s. Being pushed out by more efficient smaller and versitile aircraft. Elegn abreast is one answer but a mild make iver mybe needed to keep this aircraft going.

      • If after 20 yrs of 744 operations, you expect to grow 20% in the next 10 yrs, the A350 and 777 are no good options. Good aircraft but too small unless you are out to cut capacity radically on a probably Asian destination (where growth is >5% per yr..).

        Capacity sometimes get overshadowed here by brand loyalty and fuel efficiency. Non-sense. Airlines looks for the right capacity-range. They sell seats to destinations, efficiency is to reduce costs.

        Recently I have seen VLA comments both the 747-8i and A380 haven’t done well. That an insult to one of them I guess.

        On EK ordering the 777-9X, I guess there’s a lot of hope there.
        http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/emirates-closes-on-deal-for-boeing-747-8-intercontinental-216006/

        • 737MAX with 1,498 orders is a commercial disaster? 787 with 931 orders is a commercial disaster? But the A380 with 262 orders is a success?

          Even the 748 with only 107 orders is not the commercial disaster the A380 is. It only cost $5 billion to develop, whereas the A380 cost five times that much.

      • @keesje

        1-Can you show where you got GE’s SFC target numbers?
        2-Regarding lift and volume/weight-we’ll have to see how that pans out. Certainly at 7,000nm the B779X would do ok and the B778X would be able to perform to Clark’s expectation-which is to carry a lot of pax/cargo say DXB-LAX.

      • “GE also plans to have a new engine ready in 2018 or 2019 for the next version of the 777 that Boeing is developing, Joyce said. The company has been working on the design for almost three years and aims to make it 6 percent to 8 percent more efficient than the power plants used on the 777-300ER, which is the most fuel-efficient airliner flying today, he said.”

        http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-06/boeing-and-ge-complete-plans-for-engines-on-new-737-aircraft.html

        http://www.geaviation.com/aboutgeae/executivebios/joyce_david.html

  18. I wonder why opinions on the A380 tend to be extreme (predicting either a complete failure or a brilliant success), when facts suggest mixed results …

    • I wonder why opinions on the A380 tend to be extreme (predicting either a complete failure or a brilliant success), when facts suggest mixed results …

      Which facts?
      I think you need to compare the current number of 747-8i and A380 orders against the 1,700+ forecast in the VLA market in the next 20 years. The arithmetic does not sound correct.

      In addition,
      0. A380 was launched in 2000 (thirteen years ago)
      1. 787 was launched in 2004
      2. A350 Mk1 was launched in 2004
      3. 747-8 was launched in 2005
      3. A350XWB was launched in 2006
      4. 787-10 was launched in 2013
      5. 777-9 and 777-8 got the authority to offer in 2013. Launch may be possible at end 2013 or in 2014

      VLA quads is a small market and is threatened by the tsunami of new widebodies. Furthermore, there are signs that somebody will launch another widebody (on top of the above) in the next three years.

      • Facts, eh?
        Why do feel that you have to exaggerate the Airbus forecasted VLA numbers. In the one from the year 2000, Airbus talked about a need of 1235 units over 20 years, while in their latest forecast, they forecast a demand for 1330 units over the next 20 years.
        http://www.as777.com/data/manufacturer/forecast/airbus_2000.pdf
        http://www.airbus.com/company/market/forecast/?eID=dam_frontend_push&docID=25773

        Having said that, I would agree that both OEMs tend to produce market forecasts that suit their current product portfolio, and that one therefore should take these forecasts with a grain of salt.

        • Isn’t that ROI you mention more due to inventive bookkeeping than actual performance? The numbers that are comparable to Airbus accounting that Boeing has been asked to additionally publish look significantly bleaker the numbers form the require and official quarterly results.

          @Uwe

          I do not believe it is “inventive book keeping” one bit. The B777 program while wound up being over-budget, did deliver on time and has had a phenomenal sales record. Until recently, the B777 program, especially the B77W has had excellent margins. There is a reason why EK’s Clark has stated “we love everything about the B77W except its price”.

          The B748i program hasn’t done too well, neither has the B787 program. That being said, even the most pessimistic numbers regarding the B787 program is break-even at around 1,100-1,200 frames-something which Boeing is certainly going to acheive the next few years.

          Mind you, this has nothing to do with “Boeing versus Airbus”. The A32X and the A33X program has been phenomenal. The A345/A346 multi-billion dollar program has been a flop. I’m sure the A35X program will eventually become successful as well.

          I’m specifically talking about the quads.

          @OV-099

          Sales of the venerable B747 program had already started to slow down. Airbus should’ve focused its attention on other programs. Certainly EADS/Airbus could’ve spend more time/money/resources on developing a better and more efficient plane. Airbus already had developed an excellent twin (actually the A33X, A310 and A300 were excellent achievements) and there was no reason they could’ve “out-twinned” Boeing.

          Regarding Leahy, he’s their chief salesman and chief “frontman”. Maybe he didn’t have anythign to do with the A3XX program, but his face is the one “plastered” on all the sales.

          “In advertisements, interviews and promotional materials aimed at consumers, Mr. Leahy promises a virtual “cruise ship in the sky” to help travelers overcome the funk and boredom as day turns to night in the jet stream. By conjuring up images of happy folks dropping their kids off at the airborne nursery en route to the gym, or roaming among casinos, duty-free shops and fine restaurants at 30,000 feet, he is betting the buzz will grow so strong that airlines can’t afford not to buy the $225 million A3XX.”

          http://online.wsj.com/article/SB967587932684711431.html

          @keesje

          Where are the sales to justify 30-40 aircraft/year? Their backlog at 30 frames per year (which is a staggering 37% below their initial target of 48 frames/year delivered) is only a little over 5 years away. Add to the fact the majority (>50%) of orders came in from 2001-2006. Add the fact IT nor probably VS and possibly HK not taking their orders means a “kaput” for another 21 orders.

          I’ve stated above regarding the situations for the B787 and B748i. The B737MAX’s order book, while certainly less than that of the A32X is certainly doing well enough to provide a positive ROI.

          Also, the “break even” your cite for Airbus is on a “per frame” basis. 14 years after the first frame was built. Forget about returing a decent return with the tens of billions already sunk in.

      • VV

        Which facts ? Let’s try to draw up a quick overview.

        On the plus side :

        – Technical challenges eventually have been overcome.
        – Passengers enjoy the experience, and some companies (EK) price it.
        – Airlines having operated the aircraft for some time are very satisfied and praise its technical and economic performances. Several of them (SQ, EK, LH) have placed additional orders. Only CZ is obviously struggling, for lack of clout to obtain from the Chinese government the traffic rights the purchase was predicated on. Altogether, positive customer feedback is an important program trump.
        – production pace has improved (30 deliveries last year) and, even though some orders are quite soft, the backlog amounts to about three years of production.

        On the minus side :

        – Development costs have exceeded the initial forecast by a large amount.
        – The present market size (in number of orders) is, as you point out, comparatively small. The value of the orders, however, is huge, though as usual we lack reliable information on actual prices.
        – As a consequence of initial cost overruns and difficult production ramp-up, the financial situation of the program is shaky, and it has been a drain on Airbus finances these last few years. The situation seems to be improving through better industrial management, but lack of financial information precludes any serious appraisal.

        The balance is not as clear cut as it might seem, since this is a long-term project. Remember that, before the 747 was reengined, that program seemed in jeopardy ; a recent exemple of a late runaway success is the A330. So, the jury is still out …

        The reasons for hope are customer satisfaction and chances for an economic upturn in at least some parts of the world. In a downturn, you don’t build huge towers and you don’t order VLAs but, as soon as you see increasing business opportunities, you put on different glasses.

        You are right, though, that new and stronger competition is coming up around 2020. The program will need new initiatives.

    • I only see one extreme group that defines the A380 as worthless by design.
      The remaining contributors seem to have a realistic vision of (more or less)
      sucess over a longer time horizont.
      Then, the 747 seems to have brought actual profit only later in its life to Boeing.

      • Uwe said, “I only see one extreme group that defines the A380 as worthless by design.

        It is not an aircraft worthless by design. It is simply an aircraft that is anachronistic. It is the wrong aircraft for the wrong market at the wrong time. The aircraft itself is just fine except the wing-rib-foot cracks.

        • We view the A380 (and the 748) as niche aircraft. There is a market, but a small market. The 748 is a niche within a niche, squeezed by the 773ER and the A380 and soon to be killed off by the 779.

  19. @keesje

    The Flightglobal.com article is from 2007. EK isn’t going to be ordering any B748i’s. The time is gone.

    Regarding B748i and A380’s sales-Where are the sales? C’mon keesje, you have been making the same comments about various growth rates and subsequent A380 orders on A.net since the early/mid 2000’s. It has yet to pan out. The sales growth rate of the A380 has been dismal at best.

    • As for the supposed “lack of sales” of the A380, IMO one should at least normalize the sales of both the smaller, similar-ranged WBs and the A388 to the effective floor areas, if one wishes to make an honest, apple to apple, like-for-like, sales -wise comparison. As I indicated in a comment above, 250 A388s have about the same floor area as that of 415 777-300ERs and 500 777-200ERs. Hence, when we normalize by effective floor-areas, the sales ratio as a function of size indicates that the A380-800, in fact, has sold better than the highly successful 777-200ER by a margin of about 20 percent, while the 777-300ER, as of today, has sold better than the A380-800 by a margin of slightly less than 70 percent.
      Rgds.

      • Actually, I would say Airbus was selling the A3XX program based on replacing the B747 on almost a 1:1 basis + growth thus > 500 sales prediction of the A380 by Airbus.

        As I previously mentioned, at the end of the day, the A380 program has been a bust for Airbus. Its dragged down profit margins and ROI. As a publicly traded company, EADS/Airbus/Leahy & Co. have lot of explaining to do to the shareholders.

        • Isn’t that ROI you mention more due to inventive bookkeeping than actual performance? The numbers that are comparable to Airbus accounting that Boeing has been asked to additionally publish look significantly bleaker the numbers form the require and official quarterly results.

      • ”Actually, I would say Airbus was selling the A3XX program based on replacing the B747 on almost a 1:1 basis + growth thus > 500 sales prediction of the A380 by Airbus”

        Not really.

        Pierson, said Carcaillet will be remembered for his vision. “He recognised that we had to be part of the large aircraft market or else Boeing would keep the advantage of having a significant sector of the market to itself (with the 747).”

        http://www.orientaviation.com/section.php?currenyIssue=I20090508140527-bLWq1&currentSection=features&currentArticle=A20090527150500-r1ubx&

        As a publicly traded company, EADS/Airbus/Leahy & Co. have lot of explaining to do to the shareholders.

        Isn’t it somewhat absurd this obsession with Leahy?

        While former A3XX project director, Jurgen Thomas, is known as the “father” of the A380, Carcaillet could be described as today’s “face” of the A380. He has spent close to a third of his professional life travelling the world talking to people, be they airlines, bankers, the media or other interested parties, about the A380.

  20. @OV-099,

    Nice spin but Airbus wasn’t pandering A3XX sales based on ” effective floor area”.

    The Boeing 777 program has been very successful and has brought (and continues to do so) a nice ROI for Boeing. What kind of ROI has the A3XX brought in? That’s right, a negative ROI.

    • ” Nice spin but Airbus wasn’t pandering A3XX sales based on ” effective floor area”. “

      Yes, it may seem that for some people, it’s an inconvenient truth that the A388 has a better sales ratio as a function of size than the 77E.

      ”The Boeing 777 program has been very successful and has brought (and continues to do so) a nice ROI for Boeing. What kind of ROI has the A3XX brought in? That’s right, a negative ROI.”

      The 777 program was not a successful one, financially speaking, until the advent of the 77W. It looks like the A380 detractors in the blogosphere are not willing to grant the A380 program the courtesy of being judged over a reasonable timeframe. (i.e. 20 plus years and 2nd gen. frame.)

      • OV-099,
        You have proven that if you torture statistics enough, you can make them say anything you want.

      • “You have proven that if you torture statistics enough, you can make them say anything you want”.

        Not really.

        I’ve just shown that when you make a comparison on the number of sales of a larger and a smaller widebody (WB) aircraft, in order to judge which one is the most, or least successful, you shouldn’t just look at the absolute number of aircraft sold. Simple as that. The aircraft list prices are somewhat proportional to the effective floor areas of the aircraft. Also, when making such comparisons, while assuming that smaller and larger WBs are of a similar generation of technology, the larger aircraft will have a cockpit and onboard systems of similar complexity, and similar costs, to that of the smaller one. Whith all things being equal, the profit margin, therefore, on larger WBs, will in general be greater than that of the profit margin on the smaller WBs. Hence, the original break-even on the A380 was “only” around 250 units. Of course, the A380 production snafus, among other things, moved the break-even point solidly to the right.

      • @jacobin777

        Whatever your opinion of what Airbus should have done 15-20 years ago, the decision to pursue the development of the A3XX/A380 didn’t rest on Leahy, but rather on highly acclaimed former Airbus CEO Jean Pierson.

  21. OV-099 I’m not saying it “rested on Leahy” but IMHO he did have a hand in it:

    From 1996

    “In his analysis of what this means for Airbus and the A3XX, senior vice-president, commercial, John Leahy, points to a global demand for 13,360 aircraft, worth around $1,000 billion, over the next 20 years. “One-third of this will be for aircraft of more than 400 seats, where Airbus does not now compete. That is why we can’t afford not to be there,” he says. ”

    Apropos, 20 years would be 2016 and his/Airbus/EADS 20 year forecast has certainly been off-in fact, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off.

    Since 1996, there has been a combined 600 orders of B747’s and A380’s together! That certainly doesn’t equal the >4000+ frames Leahy predicted.

    • Clearly, the implied >4000+ frames doesn’t really square with Airbus’ own market outlook, does it? Has it occurred to you that perhaps Leahy was misquoted by FLIGHT’s reporter at the time?

      As for Leahy, you did say EADS/Airbus/Leahy & Co and not, for example, EADS/Airbus/Pierson/Thomas & Co. Hence, it seems to me that you do consider Leahy’s role in the developments leading up to the launch of the A3XX launch more important than anyone else at Airbus at the time.

      As for Leahy’s role at Airbus, his job is to sell airplanes, something he’s been quite successful at throughout his career at Airbus.

      Rgds

      • Has it occurred to you that perhaps Leahy was misquoted by FLIGHT’s reporter at the time?

        Given Leahy’s reputation for bombast, no.

      • In context of “commercial overstatements” I would judge Leahy as unremarkable. No comparison to what the average US company spokesman ( or woman at that ) spouts.
        What really raises hackles with a select group is due to Leahy being perceived a traitor. Absolutely unpatriotic 😉

      • @OV-999 No, I don’t believe it was a misquote. Even with Airbus revising its VLA forecast (along with Boeing), its still off by at least 50%. That’s is a rather number of close to 1,000.

        Stating that I believe Leahy’s role as “more important than anyone else” is completely fales.. I’ve never stated as such. I do believe however he played some kind of role.

      • Jacobin777, earlier that year (1996) Leahy said that ““a 1995 Airbus study had shown that there would be a demand for 800 planes in the 3XX class over the next 20 years”. Surely, that figure doesn’t square with what he’s quoted as saying in that FLIGHT article, does it?

        http://www.nytimes.com/1996/02/06/news/06iht-airy.t.html

        Now, IMO both A and B engage in strategic manipulations of their own market forecasts:

        (1) Forecast understatements by A in markets where B has, or will have, the superior product; and forecast understatements by B in markets where A has, or will have, the superior product.

        (2) Forecast overstatments by A in markets where A has, or will have, the superior product; and overstatements by B in markets where B has, or will have, the superior product.

        Again, as for Leahy and your view of his role in the A380 launch decision, why did you write EADS/Airbus/Leahy & Co and not, for example, EADS/Airbus/Pierson/Thomas & Co, when clearly, Pierson and Thomas were far more important figures than Leahy. Also, Leahy’s responsibilities is to sell Airbus’ entire product portfilio, while Richard Carcaillet was specifically put in charge of A380 product marketing.

        Rgds.

  22. There may come a time and point when larger aircraft may be too large. Just because over the years there has been a trend of larger aircraft, much of that growth has been due to larger, more powerful engines.
    Airports today could not handle a jet say with 1200 seats and think of what would happen if there is a cancellation of the flight, trying to move and rebook 1200 passengers, if the flight is delayed and 1200 passengers are clogging up the gate area when other flights are trying to board, the time needed to board that many passengers, it seems today’s passengers are slower than ever in walking down the isles, stowing items overhead, finding the right seat and deplaning would also prove to be painfully slow, and since these VLA are used mostly on international routes, clearing that many passengers through customs and immigration would take hours.
    Then there is always the up and down economies of the world. VLA could turn into an expensive liability during slow times, while smaller widebodies could always be placed on a longer list of routes than the VLA.
    Bigger is not always better especially in today’s volatile world. The 747-8 and A380 will be the final editions of these aircraft i my view.

  23. This debate is becoming tiresome, so let’s frame it accordingly and dismiss it in respectable fashion.

    Capacity

    747-400 → 416 seats

    A 380-800 → 525 / 555 seats

    B777-300ER → 365 seats

    In conclusion, the 77W is the most appropriate replacement aircraft for the 747-400 replacement market, being the closest in size, offering the lowest risk together with reasonable performance. Indeed, Boeing has been incredibly successful in replacing the 744 with the 77W on a greater than 1-for-1 ratio. In any case, the 747-400 and A380-800 are not competitors per classical seat count definition – see below.

    Prestige Market

    The A380 is in service with some prestigious carriers in Europe, the Middle East, Asia & Oceania. These airlines are renowned for their onboard product and service as much as the names of the particular products across the classes. These airlines are the Top Guns of the airline world, everybody looks up to them, wants to be them – okay, maybe everybody wants to be EK. The mere existence of the A380 is a path of ascendancy to the summit of the industry, so it were, for this cash-flush heavy-hitter bunch — whose whims depend on the reasonably high collective wealth of the populations where these A380 operations are based. Does the Boeing Company still refer to the 747 as “the world’s premier long-haul airplane“? My plane is bigger than yours. And has lower CASM. And is slower. Is less pretty. And is quieter. More modern. Has an onboard Olympic swimming pool.

    Mass-Market Appeal

    The 747 has been operated on every continent by a total number of customers a little bit more than one-half of the total number of A380’s purchased to date — this is not a valid comparison, but then again this is an ongoing debate, so here’s more: The 747 had military customers early on. The 747 had freighter versions early on. The 747 was upgraded/significantly modified early on. There was an energy/economic crisis during the 747’s first decade of operation. Total customers for the A380 amount to the total production run of… …nope, that’s valid, nor fair comparison either.

    Product Strategy, CMO, GMO

    Airbus predicted hub-n-spoke. Boeing predicted p2p. Both built accordingly, aligning their products as closely as they could to their respective forecasts models. The 77W has won the battle that started somewhere between 1997 and 2000 – or earlier, when Boeing exited joint VLA studies with the Airbus partners – and by every measure, while solving the overall 777 business case, and rescuing Boeing Commercial Airplanes widebody segment dominance. Does anybody remember in 2002, when Harry Stonecipher said he’d fly anywhere in the world to sell planes? The numbers speak for themselves.

    Lehman Brothers

    It has been five years since the collapse of the heavyweight investment bank Lehman Brothers, which sent shockwaves through the foundations of the US financial establishment, and by extension, those of the entire economy itself. The A380 has been flying for as long. It’s doing okay given the circumstances.

    777-9X, A380 v2.0

    At around 400 seats, the 777-9X is a more perfect replacement for the 747-400 — ditto A350-1000 with its 350 seats, to a lesser degree. The 777-9X will likely be a formidable competitor. There may yet be some big enhancements to the A380, we know Boeing is working on the 747-8i, so PIPs/major changes for the A380 should not be unexpected. Maybe.

    • “The 747 had military customers early on. The 747 had freighter versions early on.”

      The origin of the 747 was a military competition for a huge cargo lifter. Lockheed won with C5-Galaxy. The hump was necessary to get long military equipment in.

      At that time there was a need for a long range freighter aircraft with true transpacific range.

      Many will replace their 747 with 777 or A350 and some will buy A380 but far less will buy 747-8i.

      • yeah… The 747, of course, has a well documented history, so yes, there’s the C-5 for the USAF. There is also the 2707 SST. The 747 was meant to provide passenger flights for a short while until the SST’s came to dominate intercontinental pax transportation. The 747 would then carry the freight these much faster, narrower aircraft would be unable to. The key point is that the 747 was designed with very easy dual use in mind — it is a key feature of the aircraft, and a key selling point. The business case was made on 400 or so frames. History shows us that it was the model 747 on which the Boeing Company was bet, not the 2707.

        While the 747 saw early military use, the aircraft was not used in the same way the Lockheed C-5 has been used by the military — as a large transporter. Rather, the aircraft was – and continues to be – used as a command platform for the Pentagon. Indeed this 747, the E-4A, entered the record books as the most powerful aircraft in the world in June 1974 “powered by 4 General Electric F103-GE-100 turbofan engines with a total thrust of 210,000 lb. 95,250 kg.”

        Today’s 777-300ER is more powerful than some engine/airframe combinations for the 747-400.

        I don’t know why you’re jumping out of the box with the 747-8. I think I said nothing about it.

  24. Thank you, Paulo M., atho your admirable effort may go to waste. This particular blog is a battle of neurotic defense mechanisms, and thus cannot be contained by mere reason, such as for example that the two VLAs are not competitors. .

    • “the two VLAs are not competitors”

      We could not agree more and have remarked about this many times. If only Airbus and Boeing would cease their ridiculous back-and-forth.

    • Some are convinced the 50% smaller 777-9X will make the A380 obsolete. Apparently aircraft seat capacity is seen as only moderately relevant.. for the occasion.

      • Come on man, on some level you have to see that on some level the 380 will stagnate (if its not refreshed/updated) and lose sales to the 777-9x. Also since the 380 wont see a stretch or anything on the horizon engine wise, its kinda clear. The -9x wont runaway with the crown but the 380 wont be churning sales like A hoped.

        • interesting question about what is more on the horizon.

          A preplanned stretch like the A380-900 ( together with a significant engine pip/change) or
          the much talked about but still reactive overstretch on short notice of an outcompeted type ( i.e. the -9x and -8x derived from the 777-300ER due
          to the A350-1000 being on offer. FUD spread from the B side of things evaporating )
          Enough customers have made their interest in an A380-900 public.
          I would expect Airbus to go ahead without much ado when it suits their planning
          as there is not much pressure from competition.

          • Perhaps its the lack of sales for four-engine airplanes, that’s keeping Airbus from launching the A380-900. Why continue to throw good money after bad?

      • Nice try Paulo M. May I respectfully suggest that the best time to raise this -9X-replaces- the – A380 thread is when there is actual evidence that it is happening (eg. we know several airlines, including SIA, have replaced 774s with -300ERs, and that United has said that it ordered A359s (and now -1000s) for the same purpose), rather than speculate endlessly.

  25. Pingback: Replacing the 747-400 | Aviation & Aerospac...

  26. @OV-099

    Regarding VLA forecasts, certainly Boeing has been more correct than Airbus over the past number of years.

    The B779X might be considered a VLA, but we have to see how many pax the plane carriers for various carriers.

    Boeing didn’t build a new VLA because it felt there wasn’t enough of a market for 2 VLA manufacturers. That has proven to be competely correct.

    Regarding Leahy/Pierson/Thomas & Co.-I guess they can be blamed as well. 🙂

    Whether Leahy is 100% responsible or 1% responsible for the launch of the A3XX program, IMHO, he is involved and should take some percentage of blame.

    Cheers.

    • Even though nominally the 777-9X will seat 406 in three classes, Boeing has gone on record saying it does not consider the 9 to be a VLA.

      • Boeing now dubs the 777-9X a “mini-jumbo” to distinguish it from a (supposedly poor-selling) VLA and to underscore its sales potential. Whatever the marketing spin, airlines – not Boeing – will determine the aircraft’s actual role in the industry.

        One thing we can guess, though, is that it would seemingly make little economic sense to use this aircraft in a generous (9-abreast) economy class configuration. Average seat numbers should be large, even if < 400. Whether this makes it a VLA is anybody's semantic choice.

    • In the Boeing CMO for the 1999-2018 time period, Boeing projected a demand for 565 units for aircraft having from 400 to 500 seats in a generic three class configuration. Since Jan. 1, 1999, Boeing has sold 24 747-400 and 40 747-8I passenger aircraft. That’s 64 units, or about 11 percent of the then projected demand in the 400 to 500 seat class — with a little more than 5 years to go. Airbus, of course, is not offering a product in this seat class, hence Boeing’s got the 400 to 500 seat class all to themselves – for the time being. Of course, the above mentioned CMO was published not long after Boeing canned the 500-seat+ 747-600X (-/500X) program and shortly before Airbus decided to go ahead with the A3XX/A380****. Hence, Boeing’s then seeming overstatement of the 400 to 500 seat class where Boeing had an existing product on offer (747-400).

      Summing the projected requirements for 747-and-larger airplanes in all major travel markets reveals a total need for 930 airplanes over the next 20 years. Within this size category, more than half the requirement — or approximately 565 jets — is for airplanes having from 400 to 500 seats. The market for airplanes larger than today’s 747-400 becomes significant only during the second decade of this forecast. By the end of the forecast period most intercontinental routes will have at least daily service, and traffic volumes will support an airplane larger than the current 747. If airport capacity constraints are more severe, airlines may employ more of these airplanes. The projected requirement for airplanes of 500 seats or greater, however, is estimated at only 365 jets over the study period.

      http://www.as777.com/data/manufacturer/forecast/boeing_1999.pdf (page 28)

      In Airbus’ global market forecast for the period 1999 – 2018, Airbus projected a demand for a total of 1208 VLA aircraft in the >500 seat class. As of today, A380 sales have reached 20 percent of the 1999-2018 CMO projected demand for the >500 seat class — with a little more than 5 years to go.

      http://www.as777.com/data/manufacturer/forecast/airbus_1999.pdf (page 39).

      ****

      The magnitude of the discrepancy is surprising given Boeing and Airbus’s collaborative efforts in the early and mid 1990s, a process that must have involved detailed discussion of different market forecasting techniques. It provides a sense of some of the ambiguities inherent in coming up with long-run demand forecasts for such products. And the direction of discrepancy is interesting, too: Boeing’s forecasts are lower than Airbus’s, not the other way around.

      Although Boeing’s more pessimistic forecasts may represent its best estimate of future demand, an alternative interpretation is that they fulfill a strategic purpose. One possible purpose, more likely to have been important before Airbus committed to develop the A380, might have been to discourage entry by downplaying super jumbo demand. Additionally, perhaps, Boeing wanted to reinforce its point of view by signaling to third parties- investment analysts, investors, governments, customers, suppliers and even employees- that Boeing is acting responsibly in not launching a very large aircraft. Symmetrically, Airbus might be expected to overstate demand to make the case that it is acting responsibly in launching. Such signals of “taking care” tend to be most important in high-ambiguity environments. As a result, the possibility of strategic manipulation of forecasts—understatement by Boeing, overstatement by Airbus—merits mention, even though the statistical power with which it can be tested on its own (as opposed to in conjunction with other pieces of evidence) is limited

      http://essayinfo.com/sample/essay/1454/6/

  27. “My point being that you can’t blame the global financial crisis for the dismal sales of the A380”
    “At least the 747 paid the bills at one time, unlike the A380, which will NEVER make a profit..”
    “The Concord never made a profit. Neither will the A380.”
    “the 777 is selling well, while the A380 is not. It appears that seat mile cost is not all that it’s cracked up to be.”
    “What’s not debatable is, the A380 is not selling nor is the 748. The VLA era is over.”
    “I don’t know which list you are talking about, but Airbus keeps orders on the books long after everyone knows they are dead letters. With the A380, they are particularly hesitant to remove fictions, from their scant order book.”
    “Like the meme that there is a very large market for VLA.”
    “Even the 748 with only 107 orders is not the commercial disaster the A380 is. It only cost $5 billion to develop, whereas the A380 cost five times that much.”
    “Given Leahy’s reputation for bombast, no.”
    “Why continue to throw good money after bad?”

    Tom, it seems you have strong emotions on Airbus and Boeing. Even good old KC135TopBoom seems moderate in comparison.

  28. I’ve noticed a significant number of posts seem to have strong opinions of either A or B. Tom, KC135 for B and Keesje and OV for A. Has been interesting to read.

    what I’ve learned is there is alot of data and stats that can be manipulated from each side and each side has drank the Kool-Aid. A and B each have their own stats they use to prove the points- even sales- lies, damned lies and stats!

    • Could you please point out where I’ve had “strong opinions” of Boeing?

      It’s interesting that you choose to lump most of the posts together as “strong opinions of either A or B”. Of course, that’s your prerogative. On the one hand, you’ve got Tom’s comment thread contributions, while I would tend to agree with Uwe:

      I only see one extreme group that defines the A380 as worthless by design. The remaining contributors seem to have a realistic vision of (more or less)
      success over a longer time horizon.

      BTW, I’m on record in this blog for suggesting that the 777X program may be a strategic dead end for Boeing, and that IMO they should go for an all new program instead.

      • And here you raise the most important issue. There is obviously a market for th 777X, but how large can it be ? Could this project be a runaway success, or are the new variants limited by design to a little more than a market niche ?

        We do not know for sure, since “400 seat seats or less” is a new market segment, the size of which in the future is an unknown. Boeing probably believes that there is no risk of a serious failure, and has hope for a possible hit.

        The 777X addresses a need for large capacity in a dense long haul configuration, with a new engine as a distinguishing feature. It is however heavy and expensive to buy and to operate. It has to face competition from a new and lighter design. I think that the aircraft will prevail only in a specific share of the market, but will struggle to widen it, even though communality with the 77W should help.

        If this is what Boeing intended, they made the right move. To fight for very large market, a new design would have been required.

        Boeing’s caution is a fallout from the 787 experience and its financial consequences. I don’t think the board actually could have made a different choice.

  29. @Christopher Dye aka Cub3

    Nice try Paulo M. May I respectfully suggest that the best time to raise this -9X-replaces- the – A380 thread is when there is actual evidence that it is happening

    Capacity {repeat}

    B747-400 → 416 seats

    A380-800 → 525 / 555 seats

    B777-300ER → 365 seats

    B777-9X → 406 seats

    The 777-9X is very likely replacing the 747-400, not the A380 — did you perhaps misread the title of this post? This is about the 747-400, isn’t it? There will be no Boeing aircraft in the 500-plus seat market for at least another 20 years.

    • Paulo M. My remark was directed at Keesje’s suggestion that the -9X might repalce the A380 because it seemed to be weaving yet another pointless thread consisting of speculation about future events, which is what I thought you were objecting to. In fact, I appreciated what you said about the blog, and was trying to say to Keesje that it was too early to start speculating about whether the -9X would replace the 380. My apologies for not being clearer.

      • Ah dang, looks like we’re all on the defensive in a speculative environment – not of the blog, rather the topic. I thought about my initial comment on this thread today, I think I could have reworked the Prestige paragraph a bit more. I think we underestimate how exclusive the VLA sector is, and all the connotations associated with that, good and bad. But yeah, overbearing and never ending, cheers then 😉

  30. Keesje, You might have been right on Leehamnet, that it was worth speculating that the -9X could replace the A380. What surprises me is how rapidly the VLA mkt has degraded, and the airlines’ interest in much smaller planes to replace the 744. Eg. United using 314 pax A359s to replace some of their 744s. It looks like the current churnings in the mkt may be the airlines and OEM’s trying to figure out what is the largest twin aisle above 300 seats that the mkt will want that is profitable to build. B seems to think it’s 400-410 seats, so it looks like the -9X may turn out to be a twin-engined 744. Airbus is betting that the -1000 will replace a lot of those 744s and also the A346, which airlines may be dumping early. Altho I don’t think the -1000 will replace -300ERs that are already in service or on order, I do think that the -1000 could degrade -300ER’s future sales to airlines that want something smaller than the -300ER and larger than the A349, as CM suggested a while ago on Leeham.

    • Modeling your views with US carriers as reference probably is a cul the sac.
      The US is a stagnating market and due to the income rift growing all the time
      demand there should grow into (relatively) higher priced products.
      http://www.tnooz.com/2013/04/16/news/amadeus-story-reveals-asia-as-biggest-market-for-air-travel/
      apropos: what is a 359 ? a350-900 ??
      How far into the future do -300ER orders reach beyond A350-1000 availability ?
      The rush of 777-300ER orders 1/2 years ago seems to have just filled the demand vacated by moving -1000 EIS 2 years to the right.

    • UA said they would use A350-900 to replace 744. No really of course, unless you are dramatically scaling down on (Asian) destination. Since then UA upgraded to A350-1000. That still seems small. I’ m convinced they’ll at something bigger.

      777 Who else then Boeing says there will be 407 seats on the undefined 777-9X. I would think after the 469 seat 747-8i, with its mini seats, people would see the light. If EK put 337 seats in a 773ER now they’ll put 357 in a 777-9X. The rest is marketing to make per seat cost look rosy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *