Imagine there's no 747s, It's easy if you try....

[maxmin]

...Imagine no nose cabin, Up there in the sky....


I'm starting this thread in an attempt to remove any ambiguity from the other thread "B747 Withdrawals", which seems to have become diluted with speculative comments about future alternatives to the 747s....

So come all ye faithfull, peaceful and speculative..... post your thoughts, comments, questions and above all dreams about what will happen on the post 747 routes....

[zvezda]

My guess is that, ten to fifteen years from now, the A350 will dominate SQ's fleet the way the 777 does now. I would not be surprised to see SQ operating 100 A350s someday.

The big question, from my perspective, is what will Boeing build to replace the 777-300ER and 747-8I. The 787-10 looks set to eventually replace the 777-200ER. If I had to decide based on the limited information I have now, I would build a CFRP twin with a main deck width about the same as the 777 and an upper deck width just a little wider than the A320. It should easily beat the WhaleJet in structural efficiency. If it can match the WhaleJet in aerodynamic efficiency, then the WhaleJets will quickly get beached in Victorville (circa 2020). That's about the time SQ would want to be retiring their WhaleJets anyway, but it would put a big kink in the other operators' plans.

[sumitsan]

Yeah, I could see the A350 being the workhorse of the SQ fleet, but I can also see them having numerous 787s as well. Even though the orders are not there yet, I could see SQ re-considering the 747-8I 5-10 yrs from now, depending if there is a demand for it. Sometimes, they may need a plane with the capacity between the 388 and 77W. If that were to happen years from now, then the nose section will be back. Even if SQ doesn't, I'm sure other airlines besides LH will eventually get them.

As for replacement for 747-8I, unless the damand grows for this, or if Airbus does decide to pursue the 380-900 project (which may motivate Boeing to come up with another 747 derivative to compete), the nose section could end with this variant.

[zvezda]

I don't expect any more 747 variants.

[Nick C]

5 to 10 years? The 747-8I will be out of contention by then with the Y3 project coming online.

[zvezda]

I don't see any chance of a Y3 flying five years from now. Boeing won't launch a Y3 until two conditions are satisfied: the A350-1000 is selling well and the 777-300ER is not. Launch to first flight should be roughly about four years. Meanwhile, Boeing continue with their design studies.

[zvezda]

What would a hypothetical Y3 have to offer in order for SQ to order it?

For SQ to choose a Y3 over the A350-1000, Y3 would have to offer:
- similar or better range
- substantially lower CASM (because any Y3 larger than an A350-1000 would generate lower RASM).

For SQ to choose a Y3 over the WhaleJet, Y3 would have to offer:
- similar or better range
- equal or better CASM (because any Y3 smaller than a WhaleJet would generate higher RASM).

Of course, in either case, purchase price matters too.

[Nick C]

I believe SQ has first right to exercise its 13 77W options for production slots should it need to increase long haul capacity for the next 5 years.

[9V-SIA]

Back when A & B were forecasting where the airline industry was heading,
didn't A conclude that hub-to-hub was the future, hence the A380 was built.
B decided point-to-point.

We are now in that future they were forecasting.
Judging by the orders, 787/A350 v A380, B were right.

Don't know whether there will be an A380 replacement.

But it will be interesting to see what the 77W replacement will be...

[zvezda]

I thought it was obvious at the time that Boeing were right and, as cool as the WhaleJet is, there was never a rational business case that could justify the WhaleJet's development cost.

Boeing's next widebody will clearly be substantially smaller than the WhaleJet, though larger than the 777 as the 787 is nearly the same size as the 777 (despite all the ridiculous claims about the 787 being a 767 replacement). The size range Boeing need to cover is 350 to 450 or 500 seats.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVWQ5h5UOfk

The concept shown above would need engines producing about 130K lbs of thrust.

[9V-SIA]

So you see SQ needing a new a/c type between the A350/787 and A380?

Actually would the A380 be selling better if it could fly into any airport the 747 can fly into?

ie no need for airports to modify taxiways & gates?

[zvezda]

So you see SQ needing a new a/c type between the A350/787 and A380?

"Need" is probably too strong a word here. SQ could make profitable use of such an aircraft if it were to have sufficient range and per seat operating costs lower than those of the WhaleJet. Remember, airlines are buying WhaleJets for their low CASM and great range, not because of her size. It would be more accurate to say that airlines are buying WhaleJets despite her size. If Boeing can offer equal or lower CASM in a smaller package without sacrificing range, then WhaleJets will start getting beached in Victorville. No small challenge there, as the WhaleJet's size gives her a substantial advantage in aerodynamic efficiency.

Anyway, I was thinking more along the lines of when it will be time for SQ to replace their WhaleJets i.e. circa 2020. Boeing will wait until the A350 is flying before making a decision about how to replace the 777-300ER and 747-8I.

Actually would the A380 be selling better if it could fly into any airport the 747 can fly into?

ie no need for airports to modify taxiways & gates?

Probably not very much better. I think the main reason why WhaleJet sales have been so anemic is that -- except for routes with extremely fat demand curves -- the RASM drop with such a large aircraft exceeds the CASM drop. In other words, there are few routes which can profitably support such a large aircraft.

Also, gates and taxiway widths are not the only issues with airport compatibility. Many airports have taxiways crossing bridges with road traffic underneath. Most of those bridges were built to support a JumboJet with some margin for future derivatives. Some airports have needed to strengthen or rebuild such bridges.

The proposed 15-abreast (9+6 over two decks) aircraft would have a max ramp weight in the JumboJet class (450 to 500 tonnes) and a wingspan in the WhaleJet class (just under 80 meters). So, it could operate into a few more airports than the WhaleJet, but still only a fraction as many as the JumboJet.

[maxmin]

Probably not very much better. I think the main reason why WhaleJet sales have been so anemic is that -- except for routes with extremely fat demand curves -- the RASM drop with such a large aircraft exceeds the CASM drop. In other words, there are few routes which can profitably support such a large aircraft.

Very interesting analysis... can you enlighten the unenlightened on the relationship between RASM/CASM? Surely equipment decisions are based on mixture of RASM/CASM figures rather than one or the other (and I think you were emphasizing RASM).

[zvezda]

Very interesting analysis... can you enlighten the unenlightened on the relationship between RASM/CASM? Surely equipment decisions are based on mixture of RASM/CASM figures rather than one or the other (and I think you were emphasizing RASM).

Simplifying by ignoring fixed overhead, the relationship between CASM and RASM is that RASM - CASM = profit. So, yes, both are critically important in fleet acquisition decisions. Larger and newer aircraft tend toward lower CASM. Larger aircraft always have lower RASM (assuming they're serving the same markets with the same schedules) because of price elasticity of demand.

[Mr H]

If we are allowed to dream, how about Twin Otters with floats in SQ colours offering a direct domestic connection between Changi and the Harbourfront.