Boeing’s revised Airport Compatibility Document for the new, advanced 747-8 family has been revised and has incorporated some new, interesting information. Be sure to download the latest pdf., version:

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/747.htm



1. Boeing has revealed the seating plans for the proposed 581-seat 747-8Intercontinental. This airplane is a two-class configured airplane, with 48 “First-class” seats at a 38” pitch, 93 economy class seats on the upper-deck at 32” pitch and 533 economy class seats on the main deck at 32” pitch. Be sure to view the airplane “turnaround” time analysis page as well.

2. The standard tri-class Boeing ruled seating arrangement remains firm at 467 seats: 26 First class seats at 61” pitch, 89 Business class seats at 39” pitch and 352 Economy class seats at 32” pitch. There’s also an airplane “turnaround” time analysis page as well.

3. The 747-8F is capable of Mach0.845 econ cruise speed.

4. The 747-8I is capable of Mach0.855 econ cruise speed.



The 747-8F’s latest weights are:

Max. Taxi Weight: 443,614kg

Max. Take-off Weight: 442,253kg

Max. Landing Weight: 343,370kg

Max. Zero-Fuel Weight: 325,226kg

Operating Empty Weight: 191,053kg

Payload: 133,901kg excluding TARE Weight

Fuel: 227,923litres.



On the seating configuration, our -400 aircraft at South African Airways are configured with between 10 and 11 First-Class seats, which are configured at an 80” pitch, not 61” pitch as per Boeing’s seating layout for the -8I. SAA’s business class is 39 seats at 78” pitch, not 39” pitch as per Boeing’s seating layout for the -8I, and economy class is around 288 seats at a 32” pitch...the same pitch as for the -8I.



Be sure to check out the excellent website for the phenomenal 747-8F on Atlas Air’s website: http://www.atlasair.com/holdings/boeing.html



I wonder who’ll order the highly-efficient 747-8I and -8F next?

Well the OEW is now up 4t since the last 747-8F report (and up from 179t in September 2008) so I am not sure how that's going to affect the 747-8I's performance if it has gone up 4t there, as well.

MZFW rose a significant amount - almost 35t - however.

Hi Stitch!

I think you might be thinking of the -8I's MZFW? The -8F's MZFW has had slight changes since September 2007.
September '07 the MZFW was 321,597kg,
January '08 the MZFW was 325,226kg and has remaind at that weight.

The payload/range graph for the -8F has already remained solid. I think the 747-8I will still have an 8,000nm range at least...I'm inclined to believe the range for the -8I will end up nearer 8,150nm.

The data was from the same document, which listed data only for the 747-8F and also dated September 2008 (and likely dating from then). I know Boeing has announced increases in OEW between September and January, so MZFW likely increased between September 2008 and January 2009.

Hi Stitch!

I know for a fact that Boeing's first Airport Compatibility Document that was published in September 2008 was full of errors, and that Boeing quickly revised the document within a couple of days to incorporate the correct data at that time. I know I also read on the 747-8F technical page that the MZFW was 291,207kg, but that in fact is the -8I's MZFW. Boeing also had 178,759kg as the OEW for the -8F, when in fact it was 187,759kg...as you can see, the '8' and '7' were typed in the wrong order the first time around. The 747-8F's MZFW has always been around 320,000kg, with it now predicted at 325,226kg. There's been a few ton increase. The OEW was increased from 187,759kg to 191,053kg, and as you say, that's some 4ton increase.

If you look at the payload/range graph for the -8F, the performance remains solid. I'm sure it'll be the same case for the phenomenal -8I.

Thnx interesting floors plans. (pag 11 big document)

In the real world most 3-4 class 747-400 are 350-380 seats. Some 300, some up to 450 seats.

First is at least 80 inch these days ad very wide. Business class middle seat are out & everybody should have direct aisle access and a bar.

If the 747-8i will be build it will probably seqat 400 passengers in Lufthansa configuration.

Why do you say "if the 747-8i will be built"?

Using the old adage "there's no smoke without fire" can you imagine any CEO announcing to shareholders a contract for 748I's?
Sorry I think the Boeing statement was almost unambiguous. Probably trying to sort out a deal with LH as we speak.

I foretell the next topic for discussion may well be "Airforce One, what now"?

Boeing will have to build a few 747-8i airplanes if nothing else but to keep the downward pricing pressure on EADS to prevent the A380 from ever making a profit.

"Fleet In Being"?

LH has noted in their technical briefings that the 747-8I will seat 420 and their A380-800s will seat 549, which I believe is the most dense three-class seating config (EK seats 514 on their LHR-spec birds).

QUOTE

Why do you say "if the 747-8i will be built"?

It seems uncertain at this moment. I think it might be in th best interest of Boeing to skip the 8i. There are so many better ways to spend the money. I'll rather see them invest in a real 757/767 replacement, 777 improvements, a hot 787-10, 737 replacement, C-130 replacement etc. etc.



Stitch might be true, but also subject to change. Maybe airlines will reduce premium cabins soon.



I think Boeing launched the 8i on its own strenghts and market expectations, not to counter anything. That what they say. If so, it obviously did not work..

The cargo melt down / credit crunch / low fuel prices, with airlines parking 747-40F, 400BCF, 400SF and A380 pushing out more 400s for conversion comes at a very bad moment for the 747-8F. I hope this program can continue.

Well Boeing formally announced today they are going forward with both models. I don't know if LH's quote of support is from today, as well, or from before, but even if it is before, LH has never said at any time they are considering not taking it - every time they have mentioned the 747-8 Intercontinental, it's been to note their support of the model. Since I have to give LH's own comments the most weight, that they have only and always said "we're taking them" no matter how many times they are asked after how many times "the world has changed" makes me think those who believe they won't are existing in an alternate reality or have such strong feelings against the plane (and/or Boeing) that it has warped their own reality to the point that it is effectively an alternate one.

I do believe Boeing launched the program on it's own merits. I have never understood the belief that Boeing only launched the 747-8 to put pricing pressure on the A380. Boeing could have done the same with the 747-400 and the 777-300ER by offering them at such low prices airlines either would not buy the A380 or buy it at even lower prices. And since I do know a number of A380 prices placed over the better part of a decade, I can say that the existence or non-existence of the 747-8 Intercontinental did not materially affect the pricing for the most part when it came to getting the "best" deal for the airline.

Boeing has completed the forward fuselage for the first 747-8 Freighter and moved it to the final assembly jig.

The cargo melt down / credit crunch / low fuel prices also don't auger well for the A380 either. It will be very difficult to fill a 500-550 seat plane, thus destroying CASM. Airlines can also discount seat prices, destroying RASM.

There were so many better ways for Airbus to spend the money. Should have launched the A350XWB in 2000 instead.It would be in service now and making a profit, whereas the A380 program will never make a profit.

I do not know how the 350XWB could have been launched prior to the 787 launch. Airbus would have flown out with a 330 variant (as they did in later years) and would have gotten creamed by feature acceleration on the 777, and would still have no viable VLA (sorry 340's don't count) story to tell. Instead, they should have have leap frogged in NB development, wiped out the 737 with a new NB and used the cash flow to do market research (the VLA potential seems proven right by Boeing's numbers, not Airbus) and release a Boeing crusher. Instead, the 350 was a reaction product, not proactive, and many doubt if more than 150 380s will ever meet the sky.

An interesting study will come out as to why Airbus made such choices and apparent missteps, much like the Boeing story of its frustrations a decade ago.