It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by waynos
Maybe it wont fit US airports (s'n-word').
The 747-8 is more than 12 percent lighter per seat than the A380 and will consume 11 percent less fuel per passenger than the 555-seat airplane. That translates into a trip-cost reduction of 22 percent and a seat-mile cost reduction of more than 4 percent, compared to the A380. Both the 747-8 Intercontinental and 747-8 Freighter can use the existing infrastructure and ground equipment at most airports worldwide.
Source
Originally posted by shots
In addition, they are also projected to be more fuel efficent then a comparable a380 with the same seating capcity.
For starters, the combination of General Electric's (GE) new GenX engines and aerodynamic improvements means the 450-seat 747 will have 18% lower trip-mile costs than the 550-seat A380, while maintaining similar seat-mile costs.
This article is overbiased in on Boeing's side. As a B744 pilot, myself, I know the reality is that in every one of the numerous competitions that the 747 "next gen" version has been put up against the A380 it has lost. All of them. The reality is that Boeing's business plan is to push the 777-300ER as it has far better economics and almost the capacity as a 747. The 747-8 is a spoiling move that will be very lucky to get orders from passenger airlines. 747's have been disappearing from airline fleets to be replaced with new aircraft already. There are few airlines that have not made a decision to replace their 747s. For example, Cathay Pacific is replacing its 747's with the 777-300ER or the A340-600. The 747-8 has been excluded from the final list. No airline wants '60s technology, and believe me, they all see this aircraft as '60s technology. The basis of this story is ill informed, fundamentally flawed, and childishly anti-European.
Originally posted by waynos
Shots, I was being ironic. Also, I have read the article that I linked to so I know your quote comes from the 'what Boeing says' part of it. Not surprisingly Airbus doesn't agree and I don't think either you or I know enough to say for sure who, if either of them, has called it right yet.
Originally posted by waynos
It is *your quote* that Airbus disagrees with, the quote you posted was just Boeings opinion, not actual fact.
The 747-8 is more than 12 percent lighter per seat than the A380 and will consume 11 percent less fuel per passenger than the 555-seat airplane. That translates into a trip-cost reduction of 22 percent and a seat-mile cost reduction of more than 4 percent, compared to the A380. Both the 747-8 Intercontinental and 747-8 Freighter can use the existing infrastructure and ground equipment at most airports worldwide.
No No you made the statement "Not surprisingly Airbus doesn't agree" not me.
And No I do not think it was an opinion by Boeing as you claim.
You might want to look up the length of the 777 then get back to me. It has no problems using the facilities so the argument that it would be too long is moot.
Originally posted by waynos
Shots; What are you rambling about???? WTF has the 777 got to do with anything?
YOU posted this quote earlier.
The 747-8 is more than 12 percent lighter per seat than the A380 and will consume 11 percent less fuel per passenger than the 555-seat airplane. That translates into a trip-cost reduction of 22 percent and a seat-mile cost reduction of more than 4 percent, compared to the A380. Both the 747-8 Intercontinental and 747-8 Freighter can use the existing infrastructure and ground equipment at most airports worldwide.
THAT is what is Boeings opinion. THAT is what Airbus disagrees with.
Airbus’s Carcaillet says the huge cost advantages Boeing claims for the 747-8F are again due to “gross exaggeration” of the A380’s fuel burn and weight – the latter to the tune of 13t. “The reality is that the A380F’s cost per tonne is comparable to that of the 747-8 on short ranges,” he says, adding that “comparisons at short range ignore the unique non-stop range of the A380F”. He says that on long-range flights with maximum structural payload, the A380F’s cost per tonne is 15% lower.
Originally posted by waynos
For example;
Airbus’s Carcaillet says the huge cost advantages Boeing claims for the 747-8F are again due to “gross exaggeration” of the A380’s fuel burn and weight – the latter to the tune of 13t. “The reality is that the A380F’s cost per tonne is comparable to that of the 747-8 on short ranges,” he says, adding that “comparisons at short range ignore the unique non-stop range of the A380F”. He says that on long-range flights with maximum structural payload, the A380F’s cost per tonne is 15% lower.
I'd say thats a disagreement with Boeings claims, wouldn't you?
asked by shots
Yes that is a disagreement but nowhere is there any mention of length and the inability to use current facilites as you claimed.
Shots, I was being ironic.
Neither Airbus nor I really thinks that, I say again *I was being ironic*, I was referring to earlier arguments on this site that the A380 was too big.
forget the bit about it being too big, you clearly have no grasp of what was posted and my attempt top explain what I was on about has failed. Do you know what 'irony' means?
o I don't, an argument raged on here for a long time that the A380 was too big, therefore, as I have told you three times already, that was an ironic remark because the Boeing is longer than the 'too big' Airbus. It was not serious and was even flagged with the word 's'n-word'' at the end of it.