5 ms·

Um, the 787 is what kiled the 747. As in Boeing decided, as all companies do, to retire a line in favor of a more modern one. It’s really weird you don’t acknow

by 1_2__4 9y ago

Um, the 787 is what kiled the 747. As in Boeing decided, as all companies do, to retire a line in favor of a more modern one. It’s really weird you don’t acknowledge that at all.

monocasa 9y ago
The 787 is a little more than half the capacity of a 747.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  The general point being nobody wants a passenger plane with the A380 or 747's capacity anymore. Small, efficient, long-distance planes like the 787, A350 and C-Series are rendering the larger format obsolete.
  - sjm-lbm 9y ago
    .. just to piggy back on this and add a "why": the smaller long range planes are allowing airlines to connect smaller cities with direct flights while still making money. This is easier for customers, and is insanely popular. An example here is British Airways' service from New Orleans to London. Obviously, some amount of people have always wanted to get from New Orleans to London, but previously they've been flying though Dallas/Atlanta/New York, etc. The 787 allows BA to offer a much better product to those customers, and the size/cost to operate a 787 is what makes the flight commercially viable. When the sky is full of airplanes operating flights like that, there's no one group of people in one place to fill up a jumbo.
    - waqf 9y ago
      But New Orleans/London isn't two smaller cities, it's one smaller city and one major intercontinental hub. Doesn't expecting to have a nonstop flight from London to every city in the world put unsustainable pressure on landing slots in London?
      - sjm-lbm 9y ago
        Yes. But that's a slightly different problem, and one that could potentially be solved in other ways (an extra runway at LHR, going to a different airport in another European capital if London is unwilling to make the changes needed to keep their airport competitive for connecting passengers transiting through, stuff like that). Slot utilization at busy airports is one of the better pro-jumbo arguments going around at the moment, though. There's just not enough market pressure to cause airlines to push passengers away from direct flights and towards less popular routing options right now.
      - kbenson 9y ago
        Does the comparison not work if the smaller city is in Europe and he major hub is one of the ones in the US? Or even two US cities? I think perhaps using London as an example is overshadowing the point being made. If you aren't aggregating passengers at hubs which you then use larger planes for the common leg of the journey, you don't need as many larger planes.
        sjm-lbm 9y ago
        For sure, the original intent of the 787 was to enable flights that skip hubs[1], but for whatever reason, in practice that hasn't really happened[2]. Also, it's totally possible that there's a better example of a rote enabled by the 787 than New Orleans/London. That's just one that came to mind. [1] - https://www.forbes.com/sites/marcbabej/2014/12/11/airbus-a380-vs-boeing-787-revisited/#9fd5ef4165b3 https://www.forbes.com/sites/marcbabej/2014/12/11/airbus-a38... [2] - https://centreforaviation.com/insights/analysis/787-network-analysis-boeings-hub-buster-is-mostly-used-by-airlines-to-feed-not-bypass-hubs-293741 https://centreforaviation.com/insights/analysis/787-network-... (though you only get a lame summary of the article without an account)
        waqf 9y ago
        Direct flights to more destinations from any hub still means a superlinear increase in the number of slot pairs required. Are you suggesting that that wouldn't also be problematic at hubs in North America?
- SteveCoast 9y ago
  At a lower $/passenger/mile. Why fly one 747 from NY to London and make people connect to it, when you can fly one 787 from Denver and one 787 from Chicago?
  - selectodude 9y ago
    I resent that. Chicago gets 747s and 777s from British Airways and is about to get an A380 :)
    - _Codemonkeyism 9y ago
      My guess as stated elsewhere A380 usage will increase.
      - selectodude 9y ago
        I was just being snarky about the implication that Chicago is a new opportunity opened up by the 787 when it’s actually one of the largest cities in the world that already gets multiple flights daily from most major world cities.
        _Codemonkeyism 9y ago
        Last time I was in Chicago the airport was a pain as the plane needed a long time from the runway to the terminal due to the size of the airport.
        SteveCoast 9y ago
        Yeah, sure. Let's say Phoenix and Denver. Or, Colorado Springs and Oakland. Or, Gatwick and Midway.
  - notahacker 9y ago
    It might be an atypical route, but LHR slot costs and unavailability can certainly wipe out putative passenger mile cost advantages...
- junkscience2017 9y ago
  by design
- briandear 9y ago
  However the efficiency allows long, thin routes. Essentially the 787 and now the newer 777 allow more agile routing over longer distances which opens up airlines to greater routing efficiencies that aren’t as dependent on super-hub airports. There are over 600 787 routes, of which 368 are long haul and 90 are completely new routes. For example, ANA flies Tokyo to San Jose and BA flies London San Jose, those I think the BA version runs the new 777s now. My point is that passenger capacity isn’t such an important metric when comparing the ‘47 and the ‘87. And the A380 is an airplane built for last century’s model of air travel.
  - gsnedders 9y ago
    > BA flies London San Jose, those I think the BA version runs the new 777s now Still 787-9s; I'm unaware of any plan to move it to 777s.
- cdibona 9y ago
  It's a better bet to say the 777 killed the passenger 747. The real question is if cargo operations will continue to drive 747 demand. It'll probably look like tanker/military demand for the 767. The a380 cargo option never really developed...
  - gsnedders 9y ago
    > The real question is if cargo operations will continue to drive 747 demand. The reality is that we're going to have loads of 747-400s that aren't life-expired available, and I imagine many operators will just turn to freighter conversions of them rather than order new 747-8s.
  - KeepTalking 9y ago
    Till now, cargo operations are built on the backbone of older aircrafts that require relatively inexpensive modifications to haul pallets. The economics of the business rarely encourage brand new aircraft purchase with the exception of UPS and FedEx and ad-hoc specialized operators. In the future, this might not be the case. In the era of fuel efficiency most passenger aircrafts were not designed to haul cargo. In-order to save on weight the main deck on the 777 was made of lightweight materials that is acceptable for passenger traffic. This in-turn makes it very expensive for cargo conversions.

by 1_2__4 9y ago

Um, the 787 is what kiled the 747. As in Boeing decided, as all companies do, to retire a line in favor of a more modern one. It’s really weird you don’t acknowledge that at all.

monocasa 9y ago

The 787 is a little more than half the capacity of a 747.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
The general point being nobody wants a passenger plane with the A380 or 747's capacity anymore. Small, efficient, long-distance planes like the 787, A350 and C-Series are rendering the larger format obsolete.
- sjm-lbm 9y ago
  .. just to piggy back on this and add a "why": the smaller long range planes are allowing airlines to connect smaller cities with direct flights while still making money. This is easier for customers, and is insanely popular. An example here is British Airways' service from New Orleans to London. Obviously, some amount of people have always wanted to get from New Orleans to London, but previously they've been flying though Dallas/Atlanta/New York, etc. The 787 allows BA to offer a much better product to those customers, and the size/cost to operate a 787 is what makes the flight commercially viable. When the sky is full of airplanes operating flights like that, there's no one group of people in one place to fill up a jumbo.
  - waqf 9y ago
    But New Orleans/London isn't two smaller cities, it's one smaller city and one major intercontinental hub. Doesn't expecting to have a nonstop flight from London to every city in the world put unsustainable pressure on landing slots in London?
    - sjm-lbm 9y ago
      Yes. But that's a slightly different problem, and one that could potentially be solved in other ways (an extra runway at LHR, going to a different airport in another European capital if London is unwilling to make the changes needed to keep their airport competitive for connecting passengers transiting through, stuff like that). Slot utilization at busy airports is one of the better pro-jumbo arguments going around at the moment, though. There's just not enough market pressure to cause airlines to push passengers away from direct flights and towards less popular routing options right now.
    - kbenson 9y ago
      Does the comparison not work if the smaller city is in Europe and he major hub is one of the ones in the US? Or even two US cities? I think perhaps using London as an example is overshadowing the point being made. If you aren't aggregating passengers at hubs which you then use larger planes for the common leg of the journey, you don't need as many larger planes.
      - sjm-lbm 9y ago
        For sure, the original intent of the 787 was to enable flights that skip hubs[1], but for whatever reason, in practice that hasn't really happened[2]. Also, it's totally possible that there's a better example of a rote enabled by the 787 than New Orleans/London. That's just one that came to mind. [1] - https://www.forbes.com/sites/marcbabej/2014/12/11/airbus-a380-vs-boeing-787-revisited/#9fd5ef4165b3 https://www.forbes.com/sites/marcbabej/2014/12/11/airbus-a38... [2] - https://centreforaviation.com/insights/analysis/787-network-analysis-boeings-hub-buster-is-mostly-used-by-airlines-to-feed-not-bypass-hubs-293741 https://centreforaviation.com/insights/analysis/787-network-... (though you only get a lame summary of the article without an account)
      - waqf 9y ago
        Direct flights to more destinations from any hub still means a superlinear increase in the number of slot pairs required. Are you suggesting that that wouldn't also be problematic at hubs in North America?
SteveCoast 9y ago
At a lower $/passenger/mile. Why fly one 747 from NY to London and make people connect to it, when you can fly one 787 from Denver and one 787 from Chicago?
- selectodude 9y ago
  I resent that. Chicago gets 747s and 777s from British Airways and is about to get an A380 :)
  - _Codemonkeyism 9y ago
    My guess as stated elsewhere A380 usage will increase.
    - selectodude 9y ago
      I was just being snarky about the implication that Chicago is a new opportunity opened up by the 787 when it’s actually one of the largest cities in the world that already gets multiple flights daily from most major world cities.
      - _Codemonkeyism 9y ago
        Last time I was in Chicago the airport was a pain as the plane needed a long time from the runway to the terminal due to the size of the airport.
      - SteveCoast 9y ago
        Yeah, sure. Let's say Phoenix and Denver. Or, Colorado Springs and Oakland. Or, Gatwick and Midway.
- notahacker 9y ago
  It might be an atypical route, but LHR slot costs and unavailability can certainly wipe out putative passenger mile cost advantages...
junkscience2017 9y ago
by design
briandear 9y ago
However the efficiency allows long, thin routes. Essentially the 787 and now the newer 777 allow more agile routing over longer distances which opens up airlines to greater routing efficiencies that aren’t as dependent on super-hub airports. There are over 600 787 routes, of which 368 are long haul and 90 are completely new routes. For example, ANA flies Tokyo to San Jose and BA flies London San Jose, those I think the BA version runs the new 777s now. My point is that passenger capacity isn’t such an important metric when comparing the ‘47 and the ‘87. And the A380 is an airplane built for last century’s model of air travel.
- gsnedders 9y ago
  > BA flies London San Jose, those I think the BA version runs the new 777s now Still 787-9s; I'm unaware of any plan to move it to 777s.
cdibona 9y ago
It's a better bet to say the 777 killed the passenger 747. The real question is if cargo operations will continue to drive 747 demand. It'll probably look like tanker/military demand for the 767. The a380 cargo option never really developed...
- gsnedders 9y ago
  > The real question is if cargo operations will continue to drive 747 demand. The reality is that we're going to have loads of 747-400s that aren't life-expired available, and I imagine many operators will just turn to freighter conversions of them rather than order new 747-8s.
- KeepTalking 9y ago
  Till now, cargo operations are built on the backbone of older aircrafts that require relatively inexpensive modifications to haul pallets. The economics of the business rarely encourage brand new aircraft purchase with the exception of UPS and FedEx and ad-hoc specialized operators. In the future, this might not be the case. In the era of fuel efficiency most passenger aircrafts were not designed to haul cargo. In-order to save on weight the main deck on the 777 was made of lightweight materials that is acceptable for passenger traffic. This in-turn makes it very expensive for cargo conversions.