Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

captainklm

747-400, is it really that inefficient?

Recommended Posts

Sorry, not about the pmdg but about the real 747-400Anyway many 747-400s are starting to be retired in the real world which is sad. Most airlines said that the 747-400 is inefficient. Now it may seem stupid but how bad is it? Lets say comparing to a T7w. It is about 20% more efficient than the -400 which is good. But how much more can that 20% be? Lets say JAL, they kept telling the media that the 747-400 was a huge gas guzzler. didn't think that it was that bad when I compared the hourly cost, fuel burn etc. What are your thoughts anyway? Also some airlines say there 747s are inefficent so why don`t they retire them? Cathay pacific mainly, they have plenty of T7w and yet don`t get rid of the -400. But why

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

I think the answer is that there is a difference between 'not efficient' and 'not economically viable'. Not all airlines buy their aircraft, but let's say you did. It's about 350 million US Dollars for a B747, so that means even subtracting the resale value of it, you have to make a lot of flights, sell a crapload of airline tickets and deliver a lot of cargo to get your money back and then make a profit, literally years of operating the thing to break even. So if you are two years away from that break even point with your aging 747, it makes sense to keep on driving that thing around for a while longer, as opposed to throwing another 300 million at Boeing for a triple seven or whatever, which is indeed a more efficient aeroplane, but will be more years away from going into the black than your presently-owned 747 that is a mere two years away from turning a profit. Of course you can lease some more efficient aircraft, but unlike the 747, DC-10 etc, which you can pretty much get your hands on immediately since there are a lot in storage, newer more economical aircraft types often have big backlogs on deliveries, so you can't always simply phone up Boeing or a leasing company and say, I'd like a B777 tomorrow please. There are lots of instances of modern aircraft delivery delays which lead airlines to use whatever they can get their hands on, or whatever they already have their hands on, the A380 was delayed, the 787 is delayed. Even the military - who have no stockholders to appease - have the same problem, the A400 is delayed, as is the CH-47M, forcing many armies to use other types that they would probably prefer not to in an ideal world, since they too have a budget.Al

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, not about the pmdg but about the real 747-400Anyway many 747-400s are starting to be retired in the real world which is sad. Most airlines said that the 747-400 is inefficient. Now it may seem stupid but how bad is it? Lets say comparing to a T7w. It is about 20% more efficient than the -400 which is good.
Can you cite your sources please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you cite your sources please?
hmmmm, ok Ill dig up what I canThe best way to see is compare how much it costs on average and how much money they make on average.I think BA said on average it costs $100,000 to fly a 747

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, where did you get the information about airlines saying the 747 is inefficient?And also the 20% figure difference between the 747 and the T7?Post your links, I'm interesting in reading myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, where did you get the information about airlines saying the 747 is inefficient?
On Japanese tv they where saying JAL said it was bad and everything. But I read on a net JAL told that to the media. You never know, it could be an excuse. I believe ANA said the same to. Do you want me to post the link, there all in JapaneseOk,A 744 burns on average 20,000 pounds of fuel an hour. No winds or any other factorsA 77w Burns about 16,500 pounds of fuel an hour. Thats about 20%, operating costs and how much money is made should also be considered

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On Japanese tv they where saying JAL said it was bad and everything. But I read on a net JAL told that to the media. You never know, it could be an excuse. I believe ANA said the same to. Do you want me to post the link, there all in JapaneseOk,A 744 burns on average 20,000 pounds of fuel an hour. No winds or any other factorsA 77w Burns about 16,500 pounds of fuel an hour. Thats about 20%, operating costs and how much money is made should also be considered
I think we had the conversation about facts and guesses before. Using your figures: 747 => 20,000lbs/h to move 400 people = 50lbs per hour per person, 777 => 16,500lbs/h to move 300 people = 55lbs per hour per person. So by your figures, the 747 is 5 lbs of fuel per hour per person more efficient then the 777. Do you agree or do you want to make up some more figures?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think we had the conversation about facts and guesses before. Using your figures: 747 => 20,000lbs/h to move 400 people = 50lbs per hour per person, 777 => 16,500lbs/h to move 300 people = 55lbs per hour per person. So by your figures, the 747 is 5 lbs of fuel per hour per person more efficient then the 777. Do you agree or do you want to make up some more figures?
no no, I did not make that up. That was rough and inaccurate. I saw a really really excellent website that had the exact figure but I don`t remember it. Ill post it if I can find ithttp://www.airportscatalog.com/aircraft-co2-emissions.php

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not entirely sure I'd call that site credible. One, I can't find reference to sources or data (that isn't at cost). Two, and more importantly, it has data for an aircraft that hasn't seen anything past a cabin mockup, much less been mated with engines of any type.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul's point is good as airlines to look at cost per seat of operating the aircraft. However there is a big but when it comes to the economics of an aircraft. The airlines also have to look at other hard costs which are extremely difficult to estimate by we armatures. For instance a four engined plane has a lot more maintenance work to be done than a two engine plane. The systems on the 747 are of a little older design and thus have more regular maintenance needs than the newer systems of the 777. The gross landing weight of a 747 is greater than that of a 777 and thus landing and terminal fees are higher. The 747 can carry far more cargo and passengers than a 777, thus allowing airlines to make a better profit per flight. The list goes on and on. If you are truly asking if the 747 is inefficient, I would look at the sales record. The 747 has been in constant production since 1969. That's 42 years! Airlines are still ordering them. If they were an impractical aircraft that did not have a place in this "how cheap can we fly there" market, then the 747 would have been left behind. However, Boeing has continued to improve the design to keep it viable. New engines require far less maintenance. The new wing is more fuel efficient. A stretched upper deck means more seats to split the cost. Don't count the queen out yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyway many 747-400s are starting to be retired in the real world which is sad. Most airlines said that the 747-400 is inefficient.
You said most airlines, but you only gave JAL as an example and you said you got that from the tv.So what other airlines?
It is about 20% more efficient than the -400 which is good. But how much more can that 20% be?
As mentioned, the website you listed as ZERO references as to where they got their data.And only one source of information doesn't backup any fact or statement, especially without any cited references.
Also some airlines say there 747s are inefficent so why don`t they retire them? Cathay pacific mainly, they have plenty of T7w and yet don`t get rid of the -400. But why
Again, who are all these airlines making these claims, and where can I read about it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conclusion, the 747 is not a super fuel thirsty plane. It the media who said so...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I read both of those articles.It doesn't say anywhere that either JAL or Cathay stated the 747 is a fuel inefficient aircraft.What they did say is that newer aircraft such as the T7 and eventually the 787 are more fuel efficient in comparison. Mr. Barton, that's called technological advancement.And two airlines doesn't =
Most airlines said that the 747-400 is inefficient.
Which itself isn't a factual statement.If you bothered to read the articles, Cathay said the rising prices in fuel is what is basically making them look to upgrading their 747 fleet for more economically fuel efficient aircraft based on the fact that the 747 has four engines.In JAL's case, the company entered bankruptcy protection! Probably due also to rising prices for jet grade fuel.How do you even remotely get "the 747-400 is fuel inefficient" from either of those articles or Japan tv?Because product B is better then product A doesn't make product A inefficient by itself.And I have proof to back my statement up!According to Wikipedia, as of July 2010 664 Boeing 747-400 aircraft are in service, spread out over more then 50 operators - http://en.wikipedia....Flight2010_17-0They got their information from the "World Airliner Census 2010" from http://www.flightglo...me/default.aspx.According to Boeing: (http://www.boeing.co...milestones.html)- on October 30, 1998 Boeing delivered it's 50th 747-400 to British Airways - on April 22, 1999 United Airlines took delivery of it's 75th 747- on December 14, 2000 Boeing sold it's 15th 747-400 for the year, a new single year sales company recordDoesn't sound like a fuel inefficient plane to me. Huge carriers ordering large lots of the airplane.
Conclusion, the 747 is not a super fuel thirsty plane. It the media who said so...
My conclusion is you don't check your facts at all before posting. You did it in the 747 landing thread and now you're doing it here.You saw someone on Japan tv say the plane is fuel inefficient and post it here as if it's a known fact. Then you link two articles.One is a Japanese publication based on an Asian airline, the other is a publication out of the Philippines based on a Japanese airline.Both articles point to newer aircraft being more fuel efficient IN COMPARISON to the 747-400.If you want to post facts and cite sources, try using sources from other parts of the world then just Asia and Japan, and read the material first before posting it as factual content.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's also not mentioning that most news sources haven't the slightest clue about aviation in general. Anyone remember the JetBlue aircraft that came in with the nose wheel stuck sideways? They all thought it was some huge, dangerous deal. Granted, it wasn't going to lead to a good day, but the hypotheses that the aircraft would have done anything other than what actually happened was just plain hype.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Korean Airlines usually fly 772's into KSFO -that is unless N. Korea threatens to bomb the southern peninsula, then it's the 744's to KSFO. :-) So, practicality really depends on the circumstances, does it not?. -Ken Carlin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we can all agree that the 777 is more efficient than the 747. The real question is how much more efficient makes a difference. I saw today that Boeing has made their 737 2% more efficient in the past year. They equated that to about $250,000 per plane per year in savings. so even if the 777 was only 10% more efficient over the long run that makes a big difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some airlines have fuel bills in the billions of dollars. Even if you had 1% more efficiency, you would have an extra 10 million dollars profit on 1 billion dollars (or 10 million less loss in the case of many airlines). I would love 10 million in my pocket :( The 777 is a wonderful aircraft (at least from an engineering perspective). However, it doesn't suit all routes. Landing fees may be more on the 744 because of weight, but if you want to fly more passengers to destinations, a 777 may not be big enough... and the airports don't always give you extra landing slots for extra flights (to make up the passenger numbers). This is why some airlines decided to switch to A380's.Newer planes with newer engines are becoming more and more fuel efficient... and, also importantly, cleaner and quieter. Let's hope the 747-800 is a commercial success :( CheersQ>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about cargo space in a 747 compared to that of a 777. Is there bigger bucks in cargo than pax?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I read both of those articles.It doesn't say anywhere that either JAL or Cathay stated the 747 is a fuel inefficient aircraft.What they did say is that newer aircraft such as the T7 and eventually the 787 are more fuel efficient in comparison. Mr. Barton, that's called technological advancement.And two airlines doesn't = [/color] Which itself isn't a factual statement.If you bothered to read the articles, Cathay said the rising prices in fuel is what is basically making them look to upgrading their 747 fleet for more economically fuel efficient aircraft based on the fact that the 747 has four engines.In JAL's case, the company entered bankruptcy protection! Probably due also to rising prices for jet grade fuel.How do you even remotely get "the 747-400 is fuel inefficient" from either of those articles or Japan tv?Because product B is better then product A doesn't make product A inefficient by itself.And I have proof to back my statement up!According to Wikipedia, as of July 2010 664 Boeing 747-400 aircraft are in service, spread out over more then 50 operators - http://en.wikipedia....Flight2010_17-0They got their information from the "World Airliner Census 2010" from http://www.flightglo...me/default.aspx.According to Boeing: (http://www.boeing.co...milestones.html)- on October 30, 1998 Boeing delivered it's 50th 747-400 to British Airways - on April 22, 1999 United Airlines took delivery of it's 75th 747- on December 14, 2000 Boeing sold it's 15th 747-400 for the year, a new single year sales company recordDoesn't sound like a fuel inefficient plane to me. Huge carriers ordering large lots of the airplane.My conclusion is you don't check your facts at all before posting. You did it in the 747 landing thread and now you're doing it here.You saw someone on Japan tv say the plane is fuel inefficient and post it here as if it's a known fact. Then you link two articles.One is a Japanese publication based on an Asian airline, the other is a publication out of the Philippines based on a Japanese airline.Both articles point to newer aircraft being more fuel efficient IN COMPARISON to the 747-400.If you want to post facts and cite sources, try using sources from other parts of the world then just Asia and Japan, and read the material first before posting it as factual content.
ok, learn japanese and watch this. This is the ONLY thing that says the 747 is really a gas guzzler. Tip, in the video if you hear "nempi ga warui" it means its a gas guzzlerhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmQLjNhFkWg&feature=channel_video_title
What about cargo space in a 747 compared to that of a 777. Is there bigger bucks in cargo than pax?
depends on what kind, a 777f to a 747 classic freight then the 777 wins, 777f vs 747-400F then the -400 wins by a mile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paul's point is good as airlines to look at cost per seat of operating the aircraft. However there is a big but when it comes to the economics of an aircraft. The airlines also have to look at other hard costs which are extremely difficult to estimate by we armatures. For instance a four engined plane has a lot more maintenance work to be done than a two engine plane. The systems on the 747 are of a little older design and thus have more regular maintenance needs than the newer systems of the 777. The gross landing weight of a 747 is greater than that of a 777 and thus landing and terminal fees are higher. The 747 can carry far more cargo and passengers than a 777, thus allowing airlines to make a better profit per flight. The list goes on and on. If you are truly asking if the 747 is inefficient, I would look at the sales record. The 747 has been in constant production since 1969. That's 42 years! Airlines are still ordering them. If they were an impractical aircraft that did not have a place in this "how cheap can we fly there" market, then the 747 would have been left behind. However, Boeing has continued to improve the design to keep it viable. New engines require far less maintenance. The new wing is more fuel efficient. A stretched upper deck means more seats to split the cost. Don't count the queen out yet.
I totally agree with the above analysis.Gerald R.http://www.multicrewxp.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ok, learn japanese and watch this. depends on what kind, a 777f to a 747 classic freight then the 777 wins, 777f vs 747-400F then the -400 wins by a mile
Or, you could learn common sense and critical logic and we would all benefit. Even your last sentence is silly, "777f vs 747-400F then the -400 wins by a mile". What does that mean? In what way is one 'better' then the other? You have spent (wasted) half this thread saying teh 747 was inefficient and now you say it will win "by a mile"? Please...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Or, you could learn common sense and critical logic and we would all benefit. Even your last sentence is silly, "777f vs 747-400F then the -400 wins by a mile". What does that mean? In what way is one 'better' then the other? You have spent (wasted) half this thread saying teh 747 was inefficient and now you say it will win "by a mile"? Please...
I said "F" not pax. THe 747-400F is the best cargo money maker around now
Joe, I have to ask.Is english not your first language?
no actually, Japanese is. You see Im better at Japanese than English. Apologies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I said "F" not pax. THe 747-400F is the best cargo money maker around nowno actually, Japanese is. You see Im better at Japanese than English. Apologies
Sorry to thread hijack.. Joe, did you hear back from that flight control company in Japan?Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites