15 Comments Add your own

• 1. Chris C  |  February 3rd, 2009 at 20:07

  

  Thank you for supplying us with that solid quote from Tim Bader, 747 communications person! Boeing’s stance towards the phenomenal 747-8 family has remained solid since its formal launch on 14th November 2005, and both variants will be brought to the market successfully and with better-than-expected performance, so I believe. Of course the financial business case is not as good as it used to be, the same can be said for the 787 Dreamliner and the A380. Boeing remains firmly committed to the 747-8, as do the customers, period.

• 2. Chris Wallace  |  February 3rd, 2009 at 20:24

  

  Too many people focus on the immediate term without looking at the long - especially when they can spin/twist/distort the near-term to bolster an argument that, if looked at logically, is untenable.

• 3. keesje  |  February 3rd, 2009 at 22:19

  

  A Boeing confirmation on a Boeing program is just not good enough these days.

  http://blogs.thenewstribune.com/business/2007/12/11/boeing_maintains_787_delivery_schedule

• 4. Aotearoa  |  February 4th, 2009 at 07:16

  

  Ignoring the ever biased comment immediately above, I choose to agree with the Chris’s. The 748 could well shape up to be a phenomenal aircraft obviously fitting in well into infrastructure (unlike the 380 fiasco at LAX currently).

  I applaud Boeing for the courage and committment they are showing with the 748. I also suspect Boeing have more in the way of prospects up their sleeve than they are letting on right now. Perhaps the Credit Crunch and associated halt in economic growth has only delayed announcements and other timings until later…

• 5. Aurora  |  February 4th, 2009 at 14:58

  

  Boeing needs to get off the mark much faster in clarifying issues like this. Boeing’s management is no doubt aware that there is a legion of bloggers who either have an agenda or shill for the enemy across the pond and will pounce on any hint of equivocation or mis-phrasing–such as the comments that set this whole “Boeing-Will-Cancel-The-748″ nonsense off. Fleetbuzz Editorial excepted, not all bloggers check facts.

  This clarification is a step in the right direction but they need to be faster off the mark. Overall, I give Boeing a C+ for this exercise.

  BTW, my condolences to all the Boeing bashers who got it wrong. Looks like the Whalejet will not have that monopoly pricing power after all.

• 6. afromme  |  February 4th, 2009 at 18:49

  

  Note: The above full statements from Baker and McNerney are by no means _clarifications_ from Boeing, they’re just the _full_ statements from which Flight Global quoted in their “Boeing hints at possible reassessment of 747-8 programme” article.

  And to be honest - Flight was spot-on with that. That’s exactly what Boeing did - they hinted at the fact that, should the numbers change, they would re-evaluate the program. Which is different from saying “we’re going to cancel” - but it’s also different from saying “we can’t see any reason why we would cancel”.
  So they’re still confident, but carefully so, because they know that particularly freight operators are under pressure right now - and freight operators make up almost 75% of 747-8 customers. So if financing deals fall through, orders get cancelled, or 747-8F customers simply go bust, the numbers could rapidly change and no longer be in favour of the programme.

  I expect everything to go well (even though I suspect that Boeing had hoped for way better sales, and thus RoI on this), but I wouldn’t really place my bet on it, to be honest. If all existing orders are still intact at the end of 2009 (give or take one to five, maybe), the program should be fine.

• 7. mike j  |  February 4th, 2009 at 18:51

  

  If I remember correctly, the first 747-8 is Line-Number 1410 (or L/N 1412), and is only about 2 or 3 planes next on the Final Body Join area… so this could be intersting real soon!

  I agree with all long-term forcasts… once 747-8 gets built, more orders will come, and keep comming for many years. Just like 777 and 737NG.

  This is dispite my un-trusting views of Boeing’s Upper Mangament, global-economy, all the outsourcing, etc, etc, etc.

  All Boeing has to ever do, is keep promises once made, and actually build and deliver planes (on-time or close to it).

• 8. ArAiEx  |  February 4th, 2009 at 20:49

  

  Actually, Flight Global was very disingenuous with their paraphrasing of McNerney, not to mention getting the 747-8 order tally completely wrong - they count, and I quote:

  “Boeing has 106 orders for the 747-8F and a further 28 for the 747-8I”

  Not exactly - more like 106. 28 747-8I, the balance are freighters.

  Flight: “We still see a viable business proposition here. Now obviously if we ever got to a point where we didn’t, we’d have to work with our customers to come up with another answer.”

  McNerney: “But we are committed to customers who value this plane highly, and when you add it all up we still see a viable business proposition here. Now, obviously, if we ever got to the point where we didn’t, we’d have to work with our customers to come up with a different answer. But that’s not what we see right now.”

  The difference is the last sentence by McNerney, because thats the element that undermines Max Kingsley’s skewer approach at “sensationalising” the story to make out the 747 will be scrapped. Pray tell, why did he omit that last line?

  Selective journalism, period.

  Flight: “If we didn’t believe the revenues would outweigh the costs we wouldn’t go forward with it.”

  McNerney: “If we didn’t believe that the revenues would outweigh the costs, you are right, we wouldn’t go forward with it. I suppose if the airplane didn’t have the margin of competitiveness that we see on both the freighter and the passenger side right now, we would stop it.”

  Same here, why did he omit the key last sentence? Look at the words McNerney uses, highlighted in bold - why leave that detail out?

  That is far from “spot on” - it is deceptive and sinister, not to mention underhanded. It’s the same baloney found on Scott Hamiltons blog - he claims there are customers on the 747-8 worried about the program even going forward - what nonsense! Has he not seen the assembly photo’s in Randys Journal?

  Who are these “customers”? Do they even exist except in imagination?

  Anyone can claim that and pretend “they’re in the know” while actually knowing sweet f*** all.

  This isn’t the Russian Tu144 or Concorde that stopped production after a handful were built. Sure, the freight segment is in the toilet, but as with any economic downturn, it won’t last forever.

  For example - the freeze on the 777-200 Long Range jet post 9-11. The 747 can easily be frozen/resurrected if need be.

  The statements from McNerney and the one from the spokesman are unequivocal about the 747 for Boeing - so poster afromme, if you have a better “clarification”, please do share it.

• 9. Aotearoa  |  February 4th, 2009 at 22:06

  

  ArAiEx, well said. Thanks for articulating so well what many of us are thinking.

• 10. Aerofoil  |  February 5th, 2009 at 12:07

  

  The report from Flight International was amusing to read, and I now feel inclined to believe that Flight International should change their name to Flightless International, as some of their work should be grounded from being published.

  No where did Flight publish the full statement by McNerney regarding the 747-8, and further, they didn’t include this comment made by McNerney in his opening speach: “Notwithstanding the challenges this program has presented us, we still believe the 747-8 is a very competitive airplane with a strong future in a significant market niche. It is worthy of investment and will provide great value for our customers.”

  Why has there been such a furore over the 747 program with Flight’s skewed report, when it is clear to any sane individual that the 747-8 is pressing ahead as business is usual, and that the 747-8 will be rolling off the production line at Everett for decades.

  Flight also mentions that there’s “no on-going sales campaigns” for the new 747, yet McNerney said in his one answer that there ARE! And further, I’m aware of a few.

  Flight also goes and stirs shit with saying that there’s a question about the -8I holding its residual value! Well, the -8I will hold onto its residual value much longer as it is a great platform for -8BCF conversions as its the same length as the -8F! Further, Lufthansa as said over and over again just how committed they are to the -8I, and that they’re not at all bothered that they’re the only airline customer to date. They plan to convert their -8Is to -8BCFs in years to come. So for the people still harping on about the -8I being cancelled, or Lufthansa is seaking alternates…stop pissing into the wind and face facts that Lufthansa will fly the -8I in just over 2 years from now, period.

  Oh, and one last note about Flight(less)’s report: What’s the problem about being a sole operator of a type when Qantas is the sole operator of the 747-400ER pax version? The 747-8I also has BBJ orders!!

  Don’t write the 747-8I off…that’s far too premature! Orders will come.

• 11. Vero Venia  |  February 6th, 2009 at 13:23

  

  Jim has never insinuated that the 747-8 program was going to be unplugged.

  It seems that as of today there is no indication the 747-8 program would fail.

• 12. Ed  |  February 6th, 2009 at 23:56

  

  Keesje said:

  A Boeing confirmation on a Boeing program is just not good enough these days.

  That is the nature of building newer and improved types of airplanes that will fly us into the future.

  What has EADS/Airbus said lately about their programs, that sticks to the schedule? A-380 (two years late, cannot meet delivery schedule, is still not in a normal production line)? A-400M (when will it fly, 3 years late, costs more than a C-17A/ER, will the B-787 fly first?)? A-350 (still is not frozen in design, why?)?

• 13. Steve  |  February 7th, 2009 at 12:46

  

  “What has EADS/Airbus said lately about their programs”

  Why can’t Boeing issues ever be discussed here without bringing up Airbus? Jeez, you guys just can’t accept that your precious Boeing can’t do anything right lately.

  ArAiEx, You’re as funny here as on another site.

• 14. keesje  |  February 9th, 2009 at 20:40

  

  I sometimes wonder how many times unconditional believers of what Boeing marketing says must hit the wall before they start doing some objective independent observing themselves.

  10, 15 times?

• 15. Dave  |  February 12th, 2009 at 00:23

  

  The numbers simply make sense for this plane. The risks pale in comparison to those taken for the 747-100 and besides this is a gorgeous airplane! It kinda makes the A380 look like a blob with stiff wings

Leave a Comment

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed