As for the 747 dash 8 being a failure, even though it is arguably the best 747 ever, the sheer lack of numbers and the huge losses incurred by Boeing mean that it will inevitably go down in history as a failure. As for whether Boeing should have ever embarked on the project, that is far more contentious and less likely to elicit constructive debate! With so many good 747-400 airframes around, there is possibly a better case to convert these to freighters with possible aerodynamic tweaks (wing tips etc) and more efficient engines. Unless Boeing goes under, or becomes significantly less relevant, they will probably need the current 747 production facilities for other aircraft. Even if the demand for a 747 were to rise to a level which would have kept it in production, I feel that it will be highly unlikely that it will ever reach the levels required to justify the massive investment required to restart production, especially if the old facilities were no longer available, and new ones had to be built. And that is without considering, that if something of that size were in demand again, by that time, the dash 8 could be as in need of a refresh as the dash 400 was!
The 747-8, which was an inexpensive fix to appear to be competing with the A380, was only meant to perform against the a380 until the most revolutionary plane since the 777 was unveiled the 787. Which made large jets limited to perform in 95% of the markets and mostly has obliterated the hub and spoke model for countries having lots of smaller airports. . Smaller lighter planes better gas, cheaper to run and maintain and travel ultra long distances with fewer personnel. Boeing figured the 747-8 had a limited life but always knew cargo was it’s calling. Boeing was right with the 737 747 727 then 757 767 then 777 and 787 Which is why airbus never got it always behind the commercial aviation moment. Even today the market the a350 The 50 mil premium over the 787 makes u wonder who is the a350 in competition with? which is why the 787 and 777 had each approx 2000 orders each and a350 is less then 800
If China doesn’t start a world war attacking Taiwan and Hong Kong the jumbos would be needed with air space and slot restrictions BUT WE ALL KNOW CHINA WANTS TO GO TO WAR TO MAKE US ALL UNDER CHINESE COMMUNISM. USA Great Britain Canada Australia India South Korea Taiwan Japan Egypt Saudi Arabia Brazil Israel Sweden Denmark italy are all ready for war against China Russia and Iran. Darwin and Diego Garcia already a us Air Force bases because we are all preparing for china’s aggressive behaviour
@@charfras4767 I would agree that the 777 has been a great plane, and had made Boeing a lot of money, however, the profitability of the 777x, as good an aircraft as it may turn out to be, is in question - even more so when you consider that the (still ongoing) troubled development has already taken much longer than expected (it should have been in production some years ago) and the program has already cost much more than anticipated, with forecasted sales, at least in the shorter term, being less than would have been hoped for. Through no fault of their own, it is possible that Boeing are developing an aircraft which may be a little to big for the changed market - only time will tell. As for the 787 and the A350, both the latest generation of aircraft with a composite fuselage, I am afraid that I would have to disagree with your assessment. Numbers alone do not indicate success. People can and will argue over the merits of each, however, the A350 covered its development costs in 2019 - quite an achievement to do so in just 5 years. While Boeing may have (pre pandemic) sold each 787 for more than it costs them to make it, they still haven't covered the development costs well over a decade since it entered service, and with an expected date when it will cover those development costs being pushed further and further into the future, even if it does eventually cover those costs, it is unlikely that the initial version of the 787 will be anything other than a financial disappointment for Boeing. As for the cost of the finished aircraft, the 787 may be significantly cheaper, but given the under par returns, either Boeing are selling it for less than they should, or they are unable to charge what they need, simply to keep volumes up.
@@neilpickup237 my opinion is the 787 was a break through airplane like the 707 was for Boeing and the DC8 was for Douglas. The new technology’s and materials use. As such, it’s benefits will spread across following new Boeing airplanes and new derivatives of existing models. I also think the A350 is a break out aircraft for Airbus. The de Havilland DH.106 Comet was a breakout airplane too, but it’s fuselage cracking and failures that resulted in crashes and grounding of the plane allowed the Boeing and Douglas aircraft to capture the majority of the market before its problems were resolved. The Tupolev Tu-104B was also an important airplane as it was the first successful passenger jet to enter service. But it was not widely seen in the western countries.
I personally do not think the 747-8 is a failure. Boeing knew the market was limited for the plane to begin with. That is why the Sonic Cruiser morphed into what is now the 787 Dreamliner. Plus it gave Boeing a relatively low cost contender to place against the Airbus A380. The additive cost of the 747-8 is peanuts compared to what Airbus spent on the A380 program. And the 777-x can pretty much replace a significant portion of the 747 lower end market while using 2 less engines, 2 less landing gear legs and haas a longer range. And I am willing to bet, if there is demand for it, Boeing could place a modified raised cockpit designed hump on the front of the 777 and provide a front loading oversized cargo carrier. But I think Antonov has that market covered with its big An-124 and 225 cargo transporters.
"All things must pass away". I think the 747-8 might be called a success in one sense: perhaps it was a kind of "insurance policy". Boeing's 747-8 decision may have rested on the 757 experience where, as it turned out, a really excellent plane was retired too soon. Perhaps weighing the potential loss against the potential gain, it was decided to produce the new version, and possibly take a loss, rather than see another unanticipated turn in the market leave Boeing without an offering, thus taking a much larger loss. Certainly the 4-engine jumbo jet is passe, as far as anyone can see. The point-to-point route model is ascendant, engine technology has improved, fuel prices have risen, and a double deck airliner is just too big for most of the market.
Ironically, the limited, and ever reducing need for more than two engines might ensure that the A340 with its high commonality with the A330 (maintenance and crew) has a future. As it would only be needed for the longest oceanic routes, the number of flight cycles would be very low, making it possible to operate them for decades to come.
The 747 makes me happy lol - yourself? Thanks for watching - sub! Follow me on Instagram: navgeekaviation
Mog us
Sus
As for the 747 dash 8 being a failure, even though it is arguably the best 747 ever, the sheer lack of numbers and the huge losses incurred by Boeing mean that it will inevitably go down in history as a failure. As for whether Boeing should have ever embarked on the project, that is far more contentious and less likely to elicit constructive debate!
With so many good 747-400 airframes around, there is possibly a better case to convert these to freighters with possible aerodynamic tweaks (wing tips etc) and more efficient engines. Unless Boeing goes under, or becomes significantly less relevant, they will probably need the current 747 production facilities for other aircraft.
Even if the demand for a 747 were to rise to a level which would have kept it in production, I feel that it will be highly unlikely that it will ever reach the levels required to justify the massive investment required to restart production, especially if the old facilities were no longer available, and new ones had to be built. And that is without considering, that if something of that size were in demand again, by that time, the dash 8 could be as in need of a refresh as the dash 400 was!
The 747-8, which was an inexpensive fix to appear to be competing with the A380, was only meant to perform against the a380 until the most revolutionary plane since the 777 was unveiled the 787.
Which made large jets limited to perform in 95% of the markets and mostly has obliterated the hub and spoke model for countries having lots of smaller airports. . Smaller lighter planes better gas, cheaper to run and maintain and travel ultra long distances with fewer personnel. Boeing figured the 747-8 had a limited life but always knew cargo was it’s calling.
Boeing was right with the 737 747 727 then 757 767 then 777 and 787
Which is why airbus never got it always behind the commercial aviation moment. Even today the market the a350
The 50 mil premium over the 787 makes u wonder who is the a350 in competition with? which is why the 787 and 777 had each approx 2000 orders each and a350 is less then 800
If China doesn’t start a world war attacking Taiwan and Hong Kong the jumbos would be needed with air space and slot restrictions BUT WE ALL KNOW CHINA WANTS TO GO TO WAR TO MAKE US ALL UNDER CHINESE COMMUNISM. USA Great Britain Canada Australia India South Korea Taiwan Japan Egypt Saudi Arabia Brazil Israel Sweden Denmark italy are all ready for war against China Russia and Iran. Darwin and Diego Garcia already a us Air Force bases because we are all preparing for china’s aggressive behaviour
@@charfras4767 I would agree that the 777 has been a great plane, and had made Boeing a lot of money, however, the profitability of the 777x, as good an aircraft as it may turn out to be, is in question - even more so when you consider that the (still ongoing) troubled development has already taken much longer than expected (it should have been in production some years ago) and the program has already cost much more than anticipated, with forecasted sales, at least in the shorter term, being less than would have been hoped for. Through no fault of their own, it is possible that Boeing are developing an aircraft which may be a little to big for the changed market - only time will tell.
As for the 787 and the A350, both the latest generation of aircraft with a composite fuselage, I am afraid that I would have to disagree with your assessment. Numbers alone do not indicate success. People can and will argue over the merits of each, however, the A350 covered its development costs in 2019 - quite an achievement to do so in just 5 years. While Boeing may have (pre pandemic) sold each 787 for more than it costs them to make it, they still haven't covered the development costs well over a decade since it entered service, and with an expected date when it will cover those development costs being pushed further and further into the future, even if it does eventually cover those costs, it is unlikely that the initial version of the 787 will be anything other than a financial disappointment for Boeing.
As for the cost of the finished aircraft, the 787 may be significantly cheaper, but given the under par returns, either Boeing are selling it for less than they should, or they are unable to charge what they need, simply to keep volumes up.
@@neilpickup237 my opinion is the 787 was a break through airplane like the 707 was for Boeing and the DC8 was for Douglas. The new technology’s and materials use. As such, it’s benefits will spread across following new Boeing airplanes and new derivatives of existing models. I also think the A350 is a break out aircraft for Airbus. The de Havilland DH.106 Comet was a breakout airplane too, but it’s fuselage cracking and failures that resulted in crashes and grounding of the plane allowed the Boeing and Douglas aircraft to capture the majority of the market before its problems were resolved. The Tupolev Tu-104B was also an important airplane as it was the first successful passenger jet to enter service. But it was not widely seen in the western countries.
The 747-8 failure cannot be compared to the a380 tragedy
Of course it can. They were both aiming for the same market that simply didn't exist.
Last customer is Atlas, not UPS.
i think this man deserves much more than just 41K subscribers
I personally do not think the 747-8 is a failure. Boeing knew the market was limited for the plane to begin with. That is why the Sonic Cruiser morphed into what is now the 787 Dreamliner. Plus it gave Boeing a relatively low cost contender to place against the Airbus A380. The additive cost of the 747-8 is peanuts compared to what Airbus spent on the A380 program. And the 777-x can pretty much replace a significant portion of the 747 lower end market while using 2 less engines, 2 less landing gear legs and haas a longer range. And I am willing to bet, if there is demand for it, Boeing could place a modified raised cockpit designed hump on the front of the 777 and provide a front loading oversized cargo carrier. But I think Antonov has that market covered with its big An-124 and 225 cargo transporters.
its my favourite aircraft, why. the a380 that i liked too has ended production, now its the lovely 747
Seriously? No Sheikh in the Middle East wants a 748VIP? Lounge on the top, toys under, smiling?
Was it your first flight with PIA
Nope. Can't even remember!
I wouldn't say it is failed.
It did financially. They took a big financial write off on the program. They didn't make any money on it.
"All things must pass away".
I think the 747-8 might be called a success in one sense: perhaps it was a kind of "insurance policy". Boeing's 747-8 decision may have rested on the 757 experience where, as it turned out, a really excellent plane was retired too soon. Perhaps weighing the potential loss against the potential gain, it was decided to produce the new version, and possibly take a loss, rather than see another unanticipated turn in the market leave Boeing without an offering, thus taking a much larger loss.
Certainly the 4-engine jumbo jet is passe, as far as anyone can see. The point-to-point route model is ascendant, engine technology has improved, fuel prices have risen, and a double deck airliner is just too big for most of the market.
It was hardly their most successful program in Boeing's history.
Up to a certain point
Ironically, the limited, and ever reducing need for more than two engines might ensure that the A340 with its high commonality with the A330 (maintenance and crew) has a future. As it would only be needed for the longest oceanic routes, the number of flight cycles would be very low, making it possible to operate them for decades to come.
Some paltry savings in those area's don't even come close to making up for high fuel costs. What a bad take.
No not really. They are being scrapped for the most part. Nice try though.
Not with gas at 75 a barrel