UPS Boeing-777

Reply Subscribe

Page 2 of 4

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

07-17-2008, 12:59 PM

#11

767pilot

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Mar 2005

Position: 767 captain

Posts: 2,701

Quote:

Originally Posted by bifff15

I'm curious if you know what presumptions were built into the slide? There is the cost of an airplane itself, the crew, fuel, and capability. New contracts, price of fuel, number of engines, and distances to be covered all effect which one is more viable at a certain time.

I may have seen the same slide back in the days when they were doing the captains leadership course. They pretty much said that if you need non stop, the 777 was your plane, but if you didn't mind the stop in ANC, the -400 was superior.

I think like everything else, it is all a matrix with the price of oil, the price of the plane, and Boeings need to fill slots all moving targets.

07-18-2008, 06:20 AM

#12

bifff15

Banned

Joined APC: May 2006

Posts: 540

Quote:

Originally Posted by 767pilot

I've seen that slide (not a Capt but a friend showed it to me). However, I don't think the assumptions were stated or displayed. One could build a spreadsheet that takes into account all the variables then adjust them as required to see which aircraft would be the best for the long haul (length of time of ownership). I find it tough to believe that over the long run the 747-anything is better than the 777 unless one buys used at a very low price. But then again, I'm just a dude on some forum so what do I know.

07-18-2008, 11:03 AM

#13

TheBaron

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Aug 2007

Position: MD-11 FO

Posts: 608

Quote:

Originally Posted by MD11Simnerd

While true, the -400 and -800 have better numbers, saw a chart on it. I would expect more of the new 747 vs, the 777.

What chart did you see that listed a -800? Since Boeing isn't making one, I'm curious as to where the chart came from. Maybe you misread it. Maybe you're thinking of the new 747-8.
Did you notice the 777 had 22% better fuel burns over a given distance? Pretty important with the cost of oil.

07-18-2008, 12:22 PM

#14

⌐ AV8OR WANNABE

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Mar 2006

Posts: 3,333

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBaron

What chart did you see that listed a -800? Since Boeing isn't making one...

Yeah, remember it's 747-8 not -800 to emphasize they’re using technology from the 787...

07-18-2008, 12:24 PM

#15

Tigerpilot1995

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Mar 2006

Position: SDF A300 FO

Posts: 441

Quote:

Originally Posted by ⌐ AV8OR WANNABE

Yeah, remember it's 747-8 not -800 to emphasize they’re using technology from the 787...

The Asians view the number 8 as very lucky. They are the target market for that bird. Hence the change to the -8.

07-18-2008, 12:37 PM

#16

⌐ AV8OR WANNABE

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Mar 2006

Posts: 3,333

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tigerpilot1995

The Asians view the number 8 as very lucky. They are the target market for that bird. Hence the change to the -8.

True, however according to Boeing’s website “...By working together with customers and applying the innovative new technologies of the 787 Dreamliner, Boeing was able to create the 747-8 family. In fact, the designation 747-8 was chosen to show the technology connection between the 787 and the new 747.”

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/747family/747-8_background.html

07-18-2008, 01:33 PM

#17

767pilot

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Mar 2005

Position: 767 captain

Posts: 2,701

Quote:

Originally Posted by bifff15

I find it tough to believe that over the long run the 747-anything is better than the 777 unless one buys used at a very low price. But then again, I'm just a dude on some forum so what do I know.

If this company is good at anything, it is analyzing the crap out of everything. Apparently, the price offered us for the 777's was just too high so we went the other way. FDX was later offered a lower price according to UPS management.