British Airways announces immediate retirement of 747 fleet(airlinegeeks.com)
airlinegeeks.com
British Airways announces immediate retirement of 747 fleet
https://airlinegeeks.com/2020/07/16/british-airways-announces-immediate-retirement-of-747-fleet/
318 comments
too sustainable
[deleted]
I guessed so too.
The 747s are certainly long in the tooth and A350s, 777s, 787s are better in almost every way, but it's still sad to see the 747s go. They're iconic and always so much fun (to me) to see taking off/landing.
Wouldn't be surprised if this means the A380 being retired isn't far behind, too. It may have some life left in it because LHR really needs those big planes due to limited landing slots, but if travel doesn't pick up soon and they can't fill the A380s... yikes.
Wouldn't be surprised if this means the A380 being retired isn't far behind, too. It may have some life left in it because LHR really needs those big planes due to limited landing slots, but if travel doesn't pick up soon and they can't fill the A380s... yikes.
A380 "early retirement" is already well underway, accelerated by the pandemic:
Air France: https://simpleflying.com/air-france-airbus-a380-retirement/
Lufthansa: https://www.businesstraveller.com/business-travel/2020/06/19...
Emirates: https://www.forbes.com/sites/willhorton1/2020/05/18/emirates...
...and Airbus will stop building them entirely in 2021: https://www.businesstraveller.com/business-travel/2019/02/14...
Air France: https://simpleflying.com/air-france-airbus-a380-retirement/
Lufthansa: https://www.businesstraveller.com/business-travel/2020/06/19...
Emirates: https://www.forbes.com/sites/willhorton1/2020/05/18/emirates...
...and Airbus will stop building them entirely in 2021: https://www.businesstraveller.com/business-travel/2019/02/14...
I've been lucky enough to fly on the upper deck of a 747 a handful of times (both economy and business, never first!). I've yet to fly on a A380 but I suspect time is running out there.
That being said, flying long haul (transatlantic) on a 787 is sooo much better!
That being said, flying long haul (transatlantic) on a 787 is sooo much better!
I'm glad I got to fly in a 747 upper deck and nose (thanks BA and Qantas). Still I really wish I could have flown in the proper nose right at the front. The idea of having forwardish facing windows just looks so nice.
I will say the A380 is really so much better than 747s (or at least 747-4s, not sure about the newer -8s). You can just tell how much quieter it is, and the size of some of the business class sections is outstanding. Emirates' business class bar is such a fun little novelty that made flying delightful. And their economy just felt better too.
I will say the A380 is really so much better than 747s (or at least 747-4s, not sure about the newer -8s). You can just tell how much quieter it is, and the size of some of the business class sections is outstanding. Emirates' business class bar is such a fun little novelty that made flying delightful. And their economy just felt better too.
I was lucky enough to fly first earlier this year on a BA 747 to Dubai (Avios reward flight). I was sat in the 2nd row, but the seat is not that close to the window which makes it hard to benefit from the angled windows. It was cool, but not as great as people make it out to be.
agree a380 economy can be as comfortable (if you get the upstairs 2 seat aisle) as business in an old 747 ( flew lhr->dfw on an old ba 747, upstairs in business just before lockdown it was pretty sad up there)
Some early Soviet airliners used to have a glassed nose. :)
I've only done the 747-8I in economy, but it is notably much quieter than a -400, though not to the same extent as an A380.
I flew on Singapore's A380 and A350 in Business a while back. That A380 Business seat was astoundingly large. You have so much room to move around, adjust posture, stretch, etc.
Even their A350 business seat didn't have quite as much sitting-room, much of the space being taken up by part of the built-in furniture.
Given the option, I'd pick the A380 over the A350.
Even their A350 business seat didn't have quite as much sitting-room, much of the space being taken up by part of the built-in furniture.
Given the option, I'd pick the A380 over the A350.
Only time I've ever flown business class internationally was LAX to SYD on a Qantas A380. I really enjoyed it. 'Tis a pity I'm unlikely to get the opportunity again any time soon. (Unless I want to pay for it myself, and it is a lot of money.)
A lot of employers nowadays seem to restrict business class travel to VP level and above (or sometimes the really exceptional IC, as in "distinguished engineer" status). If you fly economy enough, you may get enough status to get upgraded occasionally; if you don't fly often, you've got little hope. My Dad tells me how, back in the 1990s, the company he worked for let anyone (even the most junior IC) fly business whenever the flight was long enough (and all US-Australia flights were). Such a policy was not uncommon back then, much rarer today.
A lot of employers nowadays seem to restrict business class travel to VP level and above (or sometimes the really exceptional IC, as in "distinguished engineer" status). If you fly economy enough, you may get enough status to get upgraded occasionally; if you don't fly often, you've got little hope. My Dad tells me how, back in the 1990s, the company he worked for let anyone (even the most junior IC) fly business whenever the flight was long enough (and all US-Australia flights were). Such a policy was not uncommon back then, much rarer today.
My large employer has that policy still (business class if any leg of trip is >8 hrs).
Everyone at the VP level doesn’t get to book better than the rest, but they fly so much that they’re regularly upgraded.
Everyone at the VP level doesn’t get to book better than the rest, but they fly so much that they’re regularly upgraded.
I once blew a bunch of frequent flyer miles for SFO-HKG on Cathay Pacific, first class, the pair of seats in the 747 nose with several windows each. It was glorious.
I flew a couple of times transatlantic on 747 upper deck (economy) and it was fine.
But the beauty of the 747 was seeing it from the outside. I once spent an entire afternoon watching them take off and land at JFK (in 1990 I think) and I still remember it fondly. It was incredible, and beautiful.
But the beauty of the 747 was seeing it from the outside. I once spent an entire afternoon watching them take off and land at JFK (in 1990 I think) and I still remember it fondly. It was incredible, and beautiful.
The A380 is supposed to end production in 2021. Airbus made a bet on the wrong business model, hub and spoke.
One of the great things about the 747 was all the different variations. It had what the aviation industry craved.
The A380 is cool to watch land, it always looks like its just going to fall out of the sky. But it's too much plane.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747#Variants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A380#End_of_production
One of the great things about the 747 was all the different variations. It had what the aviation industry craved.
The A380 is cool to watch land, it always looks like its just going to fall out of the sky. But it's too much plane.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747#Variants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A380#End_of_production
They are still very competitive with A320 and A350. I hope A380 will get revived eventually, best passenger jet experience on the market right now.
I always liked seeing the staircase when boarding a 747. It really makes it feel like you're flying through the air in a building.
When I was a freshman at Caltech in 1969, a few of us took some fake psilocybin one evening and were looking for something to do.
We found out that there was a brand new 747 parked at LAX, one of the first off the line. It wasn't in passenger service yet, but it was open for anyone to take a self guided tour!
So we ran down there and wandered around the 747, visited the cockpit and everywhere and went up and down the staircase a few times.
I'd been on airplanes before, but never one with a spiral staircase. It was awesome!
We found out that there was a brand new 747 parked at LAX, one of the first off the line. It wasn't in passenger service yet, but it was open for anyone to take a self guided tour!
So we ran down there and wandered around the 747, visited the cockpit and everywhere and went up and down the staircase a few times.
I'd been on airplanes before, but never one with a spiral staircase. It was awesome!
I've seen people refer to "friends" that took psilocybin, but never someone saying they took fake psilocybin. Were you being facetious or was it some sort of synthetic?
Not facetious, it was some sort of synthetic. We never knew what it really was. It wasn't real psilocybin, but it was something.
Sounds like something from Shulgin's book[1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PiHKAL
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PiHKAL
I bought new copies of PiHKAL and TiHKAL when Shulgin passed away a couple years ago. Not reading for the faint of heart, but damn those 2 were dedicated to their science. Just knowing their lab was the shed in the back yard makes it a little more on the "whaaaaa?" side of things.
Sounds a bit like the Curies and Barry Marshall:
https://www.google.com/search?q=scientist+gave+himself+ulcer...
https://www.google.com/search?q=scientist+gave+himself+ulcer...
Helluva dinner party invite...
It was Hofmann wo first synthesized Psilocybin.
[1] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02160424
[1] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02160424
A problem with unregulated substances. At the end of the day the kids are never really sure what they're taking.
Here, try this! Some crazy weekends started out with that phrase. The hazy days of designer drugs. BTW, no judging, recognition from a fellow psychonaut,
Back then, probably DMT.
DMT was quite niche back then and not substitutible for psilocybin as it’s not orally active. Much more likely to be a synthetic phenethylamine or tryptamine. Candidates back then would be DOM, DOI, etc.
That’s not active orally if not combined with a MAO inhibitor (as in Ayahuasca)
"STP"?
It was a bs street name made up by dealers to describe a long-lasting phenethylamine I think DOM.
Supposedly stood for “serenity, tranquility, peace”
Supposedly stood for “serenity, tranquility, peace”
Naw, that is a fuel additive for an automobile.
I make it a point to never drink fuel additives. I figure my car can use it better than me.
I make it a point to never drink fuel additives. I figure my car can use it better than me.
I thought it was a SWIM thing too.
Yeah, I did that a lot, back in those days. It seems impossibly risky now. But when you're young, you feel immortal. And conversely, we were all expecting to die in a global nuclear war. So hey.
When we were young, we were immortal. Those of us who survived our youth anyway.
I was a five-year-old in Eugene, Oregon in the late 1950s. The new house being built down the hill next door had an underground bomb shelter. Of course we made that our clubhouse during construction!
The house just up the hill wasn't as far along, but they had cut down the trees and we made tunnels and hideouts among the fallen trunks and branches. We called it "The Rough Country".
And then I got a chemistry set! The real kind, with chemicals and apparatus that could burn you, blind you, or take your skin right off.
Of course, now we have eliminated all risk and the world is perfectly safe.
I was a five-year-old in Eugene, Oregon in the late 1950s. The new house being built down the hill next door had an underground bomb shelter. Of course we made that our clubhouse during construction!
The house just up the hill wasn't as far along, but they had cut down the trees and we made tunnels and hideouts among the fallen trunks and branches. We called it "The Rough Country".
And then I got a chemistry set! The real kind, with chemicals and apparatus that could burn you, blind you, or take your skin right off.
Of course, now we have eliminated all risk and the world is perfectly safe.
Nice to see another techer! My dad took me to see the first 747 that landed at Frankfurt in 1969.
[deleted]
what is fake psilocybin?
Pseudocybin!
None of us knew. Being physics and chemistry students, if we knew what it was we would call it by its own name.
We did know that when you took it, it felt a bit like real psilocybin mushrooms.
But it came as a powder in a capsule, so we called it fake psilocybin.
We did know that when you took it, it felt a bit like real psilocybin mushrooms.
But it came as a powder in a capsule, so we called it fake psilocybin.
I see.
A340 also have stairs (which lead to its "underground" lavatories).
A380s are relatively new arent they? Compared to 747s I mean.
They're even bigger though, so they have the same problem as the 747 in a post-COVID world only worse.
In hindsight it was a mistake ever developing them. They're a huge loss for Airbus and will never remotely turn a profit.
In hindsight it was a mistake ever developing them. They're a huge loss for Airbus and will never remotely turn a profit.
They've turned out to be unpopular which means they're doomed. But pandemic notwithstanding they made sense for hub-and-spoke carriers (like the Gulf states or Turkish Airlines) in a world where landing slots became increasingly limited and expensive (because the likes of London will probably take 100 years to get around to building another runway). They've ended up failing, but I don't think it was as dumb an idea as many people see them as.
Bad investment for Airbus might turn into cash cow to airliners after 3-4 years.
If air traffic returns to fast growth era, congestion in large cities becomes issue again and A380 shines there. There is only limited number of them and A380 is surprisingly efficient.
Landing slots are expensive. A380 wins cost/passenger easily in busy and congested airfields.
A380 is easy on pavement. Pavement maintenance is roughly third of airfield maintenance. When landing fee rates reflect pavement loading accurately, a380 becomes even more economic to operate in large airfields.
If air traffic returns to fast growth era, congestion in large cities becomes issue again and A380 shines there. There is only limited number of them and A380 is surprisingly efficient.
Landing slots are expensive. A380 wins cost/passenger easily in busy and congested airfields.
A380 is easy on pavement. Pavement maintenance is roughly third of airfield maintenance. When landing fee rates reflect pavement loading accurately, a380 becomes even more economic to operate in large airfields.
There'd been rumor of a Turkish Airlines's order for A380 for so long but it never happened. Etihad and Qatar each operate a tiny fleet. In fact A380 seems to only work for Emirates. So it doesn't really make sense for hub and spoke airlines either.
It isn't a dumb idea. It's a marvelous machine. But it isn't viable commercially and Airbus let prestige cloud their judgement. Doesn't help that they fucked up the service introduction, causing a two year delay and probably extra billions.
It isn't a dumb idea. It's a marvelous machine. But it isn't viable commercially and Airbus let prestige cloud their judgement. Doesn't help that they fucked up the service introduction, causing a two year delay and probably extra billions.
[deleted]
They're certainly not unpopular with travellers, citing quietness and smoothness and space (larger seats.) The premium that customers are willing to pay vs non-A380s for the same route is a different matter of course, and their difficult economics certainly made them less popular with airlines. And that was before covid19.
London may never build another runway. The current prime minister has personally campaigned against it, for a start.
Hopefully Heathrow will never build an additional runway, and will eventually be closed. A different airport (near London) should build it instead.
The noise pollution from aircraft flying over London to land is horrible, and affects millions of people.
The noise pollution from aircraft flying over London to land is horrible, and affects millions of people.
He's only campaigned against it at Heathrow. He has also championed the idea of "Boris Island" - a brand new airport in the Thames Estuary.
They were dying even before COVID19. Airbus announced the end of A380 production back in February 2019.
They are only scheduled to deliver another 9 planes, and I wouldn't be surprised if some of those end up cancelled.
They are only scheduled to deliver another 9 planes, and I wouldn't be surprised if some of those end up cancelled.
They're actually even worse than the 747, because one of the benefits of the 747 (and some of the few outstanding orders of 747 production left) is that they were designed to be easily converted into freighter aircraft, because at the time people thought the 747 was a stopgap till supersonic travel became the norm. The A380, due to its heavier dead weight, wouldn't be very good as a freighter even if it could be turned into one.
That being said, the A380 being a lemon certainly cost Airbus far less than the 737MAX program has taken down Boeing.
That being said, the A380 being a lemon certainly cost Airbus far less than the 737MAX program has taken down Boeing.
> The A380, due to its heavier dead weight, wouldn't be very good as a freighter even if it could be turned into one.
That’s not the reason. Airbus was exceptionally short sighted; they designed an A380 cargo option but never built it.
https://simpleflying.com/cargo-a380-how-to-load/
That’s not the reason. Airbus was exceptionally short sighted; they designed an A380 cargo option but never built it.
https://simpleflying.com/cargo-a380-how-to-load/
Both things are true. Same website as your link corroborating what I‘m saying: https://simpleflying.com/why-existing-airbus-a380s-wont-be-c...
> Alas, there are some flaws in the A380 design when it comes to cargo.
> The first is how heavy the A380 is. Because the A380 has a heavier empty weight than the competitive Boeing 747-8F cargo carrier, it actually costs more to get the aircraft in the air.
> In practice, this means that despite having more room onboard, the A380 would hit its maximum carrying weight before the entire volume was filled up, leaving plenty of extra empty room onboard. It would be too expensive for a cargo operator to run to make a profit.
> Alas, there are some flaws in the A380 design when it comes to cargo.
> The first is how heavy the A380 is. Because the A380 has a heavier empty weight than the competitive Boeing 747-8F cargo carrier, it actually costs more to get the aircraft in the air.
> In practice, this means that despite having more room onboard, the A380 would hit its maximum carrying weight before the entire volume was filled up, leaving plenty of extra empty room onboard. It would be too expensive for a cargo operator to run to make a profit.
I remember as a student seeing an Airbus bigwig explain why they created the A380 using a financial diagram : "short couriers costs X€/seat, transatlantic couriers costs Y€/seat and the new A380 will cost Z€/seat" (Z < Y < X of course), disregarding completely the fact that landways needed to be widened/stretched or that airports started to bubble everywhere leading to what we know as the hub-and-spoke model.
In all honesty, I'm pretty sure Airbus exec went with the A380 design as a pissing contest with Boeing.
In all honesty, I'm pretty sure Airbus exec went with the A380 design as a pissing contest with Boeing.
not really. the a380 was designed to be able to use any airport which could service a 747 (so no widening or lengthening of runways etc) and airbus were betting ON the hub and spoke model remaining dominant, which didn't happen, and point to point flights between regional airports became the norm instead with the 787 etc being used to services them.
That’s only partially true. They could land at any airport that could land a 747. They could not be a regular scheduled flight there. Runways had to be reinforced for the heavier plane. And the terminals needed to be upgraded to accommodate the 2 levels of passenger boarding. There are still relatively few airports that could accommodate scheduled A380 service except a dozen major cities.
i stopped counting at 15 (over a dozen) cities in this list [0] and had just finished the letter c so there are scheduled a380 flights to many more destinations than you imagined...
0. https://www.iflya380.com/a380-destinations.html
0. https://www.iflya380.com/a380-destinations.html
Sorry, misspoke according to Airbus it is 140 airports.
https://simpleflying.com/hi-fly-airbus-a380-lisbon/
https://simpleflying.com/hi-fly-airbus-a380-lisbon/
I always wanted to fly upstairs in a 747, but they never flew on my routes. I think also surprisingly it’s usually just normal business class up there, not first?
I was on a BA London to SFO flight March 12th, upper deck. It was all business. First was in front downstairs.
The first time I flew was as a grubby college student. It was upstairs on a 747. The people near me gave me dirty looks. I didn’t know what business class was or why I had been upgraded. I slept through the entire flight. I wish I had been able to appreciate it!
South African used to have coach upstairs when I flew it. New York to Johannesburg was an amazing flight, I think it was 16 or so hours. Eventually you’re just sitting there wondering how long can this thing fly?
That flight is brutal without sufficient entertainment. I’ve gotten bored of everything I brought and time slows to a crawl.
[deleted]
I flew SFO to London a few times both upstairs and downstairs. Didn’t notice that much of a difference other than it’s a bit more cozy upstairs since there are far fewer seats.
The upper deck is a little confined - there's less headroom and no space to add additional amenities. Using the nose for first class gives a greater feeling of space and there's more room for self-service bar facilities.
I flew upstairs in a BA 747 to Tokyo. Was business class. It was a bit better than my return flight downstairs in business class as there were only 20 seats and 2 crew between us so better service.
Yeah that’s what I always thought - surely quieter, more private, more staff, so why only business.
I’m lucky enough to have flown in both both business and first (upgrade!) on a 747, although a long time ago. The front was a bit more spacious, and since there is no cockpit in front it feels quite different to upstairs.
The upstairs business class cabin on the -400 was also larger (more people flying) if I remember correctly. A lot less people fly first than business.
In first you are ahead of the front wheels, so when turning during taxi, it’s quite an odd sensation.
The upstairs business class cabin on the -400 was also larger (more people flying) if I remember correctly. A lot less people fly first than business.
In first you are ahead of the front wheels, so when turning during taxi, it’s quite an odd sensation.
The nose of the 747 is also very quiet; you are very far forward. It's also private as there's no through traffic - you turn left on boarding through 1L and there's only First there.
My experience if being up there was always business. They didn't operate first on those routes.
First on BA, when operated, has been in the nose of 747 for the longest time; certainly for the past twenty years.
Thanks, I wasn't aware of that. The routes I fly just don't have a first class, so I wasn't aware.
I'm a little nostalgic for this - I flew quite a few trips in the upper deck of a 747 over the last few years, almost all of them on the back of a long stretch of work and a "celebratory" night before travelling. It's a strange feeling but I'm almost sad to see them go.
On the other hand, more modern plans are so much more efficient. An A350 uses literally half the fuel of an A380, (which itself uses less than a 747).With lower capacity hopefully comes lower demand for air travel - this can only be a good thing.
On the other hand, more modern plans are so much more efficient. An A350 uses literally half the fuel of an A380, (which itself uses less than a 747).With lower capacity hopefully comes lower demand for air travel - this can only be a good thing.
> With lower capacity hopefully comes lower demand for air travel - this can only be a good thing.
Why is it only a good thing? Lower capacity for air travel means all kinds of travel that is of value to people can't reasonably take place any more. People have relatives and friends that live too far away to make visiting in person by any other means infeasible. People want to go to see places in person that they can't feasibly get to any other way. People have business reasons to make trips that can't feasibly be made any other way. There was a lot of demand pre-COVID for air travel for a reason. The capacity just vanishing is a loss for many.
Why is it only a good thing? Lower capacity for air travel means all kinds of travel that is of value to people can't reasonably take place any more. People have relatives and friends that live too far away to make visiting in person by any other means infeasible. People want to go to see places in person that they can't feasibly get to any other way. People have business reasons to make trips that can't feasibly be made any other way. There was a lot of demand pre-COVID for air travel for a reason. The capacity just vanishing is a loss for many.
These things are always a balance between cost and benefit, and the status quo is just a temporary equilibrium based on oil prices, labour costs, environmental policy, technology, safety standards, business models, etc. and should change as those do.
I try to avoid getting too anchored to incidental aspects of the present. One way is to turn those questions around: what about the people with relatives and friends that already live too far away to make travel feasible? What about all the places that people already can't feasibly get to? What about all of the business which already doesn't get done due to travel practicalities?
There will always be more opportunities to open up by cranking the dial a bit further; but we have to strike a balance somewhere due to the costs. It's a shame that so many opportunities are already blocked by travel costs, but there's no point losing sleep over it. Likewise, if the current costs are too great (e.g. environmentally), then the dial should be turned down a little. Many people would be disadvantaged, but they'd just get added to all those already disadvantaged by the current equilibrium. It's not, in itself, a reason to avoid dialing things down. The things which really matter are: the relative numbers of people affected, whether the budget could be made more equitable or prioritised (e.g. charging frequent flyers more, to keep one-off prices lower), etc.
I try to avoid getting too anchored to incidental aspects of the present. One way is to turn those questions around: what about the people with relatives and friends that already live too far away to make travel feasible? What about all the places that people already can't feasibly get to? What about all of the business which already doesn't get done due to travel practicalities?
There will always be more opportunities to open up by cranking the dial a bit further; but we have to strike a balance somewhere due to the costs. It's a shame that so many opportunities are already blocked by travel costs, but there's no point losing sleep over it. Likewise, if the current costs are too great (e.g. environmentally), then the dial should be turned down a little. Many people would be disadvantaged, but they'd just get added to all those already disadvantaged by the current equilibrium. It's not, in itself, a reason to avoid dialing things down. The things which really matter are: the relative numbers of people affected, whether the budget could be made more equitable or prioritised (e.g. charging frequent flyers more, to keep one-off prices lower), etc.
> I try to avoid getting too anchored to incidental aspects of the present.
Many aspects of the present are not "incidental", they are based on choices that people made in the past in the context of expectations about the future and what options would reasonably be available to them. A sudden drastic change in the actual options available in the present vs. what options people reasonably expected when they made significant choices in the past (like where to live and where to locate businesses) is going to have a drastic impact on people.
Yes, a new equilibrium will need to be found and we're not just going to go back to the way things were before, but to say that the drastic change that has happened "can only be a good thing", as the post I originally responded to did, ignores the large negative impact of the change on people who made significant choices in the past that they would not have made if the future they had expected then was the same as our actual present now.
Many aspects of the present are not "incidental", they are based on choices that people made in the past in the context of expectations about the future and what options would reasonably be available to them. A sudden drastic change in the actual options available in the present vs. what options people reasonably expected when they made significant choices in the past (like where to live and where to locate businesses) is going to have a drastic impact on people.
Yes, a new equilibrium will need to be found and we're not just going to go back to the way things were before, but to say that the drastic change that has happened "can only be a good thing", as the post I originally responded to did, ignores the large negative impact of the change on people who made significant choices in the past that they would not have made if the future they had expected then was the same as our actual present now.
Kurtis Baute made a good visual illustration about carbon impact of air travel in his recent video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvhXtOps4MM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvhXtOps4MM
I'm guessing because the costs to the consumer for a ticket don't reflect the costs to the world in carbon emissions.
A good thing for the environment perhaps.
> People have business reasons to make trips that can't feasibly be made any other way. There was a lot of demand pre-COVID for air travel for a reason.
Maybe. I think we've seen that a lot of those business trips weren't actually necessary as such, and were more about making an expensive signal of commitment.
Maybe. I think we've seen that a lot of those business trips weren't actually necessary as such, and were more about making an expensive signal of commitment.
Those business trips probably were necessary in the 70’s, before the internet and video conferencing.
But in 2019 I think most trips were more about corporate inertia than practical need.
But in 2019 I think most trips were more about corporate inertia than practical need.
Also perks. I've had some fun trips to California that I suspect were not entirely necessary - we'd have been fine if we could have just all shifted our working days to overlap for a week or so.
[deleted]
Here is a lovely tour by an amazing flight attendant on one of the last KLM 747 flights https://youtu.be/FgeHMW79MFU
The entire video sparks nostalgia and joy
The entire video sparks nostalgia and joy
As a young kid I always dreamed of flying in the upper deck of the queen. I fulfilled it a few years ago, in one of the last Delta flights on the 747. I, too, share your feelings.
My dad tells me stories about how, as a kid, I was allowed to visit the cockpit of a 747 mid flight. Mind you, this was pre-911. I too am sad to see this bird dissapear.
I used to fly a lot as an unaccompanied minor[1].
It's way different now in the post-911 aviation world, but on several of those flights the flight attendants keeping tabs on me would take me up to the cockpit at some point during the flight to say hello to the pilots and get a wing pin[2]. And on one occasion I got to spend the majority of the flight in a cockpit jumpseat.
Man, those were fun times. One trip I got pawned onto the maintenance crew afterwards due to the person picking me up being late, and got to drive the vehicle thing that pushes back planes from the gate. As a kid, I think I enjoyed that experience (and the feeling of power over an airplane) more than the jumpseat experience.
[1] https://thepointsguy.com/news/airline-unaccompanied-minor-po...
[2] https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-children/1437386-real...
It's way different now in the post-911 aviation world, but on several of those flights the flight attendants keeping tabs on me would take me up to the cockpit at some point during the flight to say hello to the pilots and get a wing pin[2]. And on one occasion I got to spend the majority of the flight in a cockpit jumpseat.
Man, those were fun times. One trip I got pawned onto the maintenance crew afterwards due to the person picking me up being late, and got to drive the vehicle thing that pushes back planes from the gate. As a kid, I think I enjoyed that experience (and the feeling of power over an airplane) more than the jumpseat experience.
[1] https://thepointsguy.com/news/airline-unaccompanied-minor-po...
[2] https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-children/1437386-real...
Yeah, the same! Flied unaccompanied every other weekend for probably ten years, even before “unaccompanied minor” was a thing.
My highlight: At some point, late seventies or early eighties, I got to pull the lever to lower the landing gear! I can imagine that being legal, even then...
My highlight: At some point, late seventies or early eighties, I got to pull the lever to lower the landing gear! I can imagine that being legal, even then...
> I can imagine that being legal, even then...
Ha! Yea, it's amazing how liberal pilots used to be (at least in relation to kids). As a parent now, I can't fathom the thought process of a pilot trusting a kid (even more so one they don't know) in the cockpit of an in-flight airliner.
But as someone who was able to experience it, I'm forever grateful for those pilots with potentially questionable judgement. The few childhood memories I can recall are vague recollections at best, but those particular memories are so crystalized I still get a sense of elation just recalling the experiences.
Ha! Yea, it's amazing how liberal pilots used to be (at least in relation to kids). As a parent now, I can't fathom the thought process of a pilot trusting a kid (even more so one they don't know) in the cockpit of an in-flight airliner.
But as someone who was able to experience it, I'm forever grateful for those pilots with potentially questionable judgement. The few childhood memories I can recall are vague recollections at best, but those particular memories are so crystalized I still get a sense of elation just recalling the experiences.
I had the same experience many, many years ago. And my dad is still envious to this day.
Wait, it uses HALF the fuel but carries only 30% less passengers (a380: 555 across 3 classes, a350: 387 across 2 classes)
Man, even aside from the deprecated hub and spoke model, this just seems too easy an argument against the a380. No wonder it croaked.
Man, even aside from the deprecated hub and spoke model, this just seems too easy an argument against the a380. No wonder it croaked.
It's hard to do an apples to apples comparison as the A380 was one of the few (only) modern planes to feature a first class.
To compare across the same airline, SIA long-haul configuration for the A350-900 is 253 pax in 3-class vs 443 in 4-class for the A380, so the A350-900 is carrying 40% fewer people and 1 less class.
Even against the most modern aircraft the A380's fuel consumption per pax per unit distance is likely to be competitive, the problem is filling the thing with people.
To compare across the same airline, SIA long-haul configuration for the A350-900 is 253 pax in 3-class vs 443 in 4-class for the A380, so the A350-900 is carrying 40% fewer people and 1 less class.
Even against the most modern aircraft the A380's fuel consumption per pax per unit distance is likely to be competitive, the problem is filling the thing with people.
> the A380 was one of the few (only) modern planes to feature a first class
You know the seats are at the discretion of the airline, right? There’s no built in A380 first class.
You know the seats are at the discretion of the airline, right? There’s no built in A380 first class.
I think what he means is that first class is now very rare, except on A380s.
Comparing the number of seats on an Emirates A380 for example is a bit unfair, because the upper deck is just so luxurious. If you remove the cocktail bar, the showers, and just keep standard business cots on the upper deck, you could probably add a good 20-30 seats
Comparing the number of seats on an Emirates A380 for example is a bit unfair, because the upper deck is just so luxurious. If you remove the cocktail bar, the showers, and just keep standard business cots on the upper deck, you could probably add a good 20-30 seats
> I think what he means is that first class is now very rare, except on A380s
That would still be wrong. Most decent First Class cabins these days are on 777s: https://onemileatatime.com/best-first-class/
That would still be wrong. Most decent First Class cabins these days are on 777s: https://onemileatatime.com/best-first-class/
Several airlines in east Asia, as well as BA and probably a few others, have first class on 777s.
For the east asian airlines I agree with you. For BA less, their first class is more compact than the business on an Emirates A380, let alone first
Emirates have First Class on 777s too!
As an example, Air Austral had a [cancelled] order for A380 in an all economy configuration, which would have sat 840 people
I didn't say "built", I said "feature", and in response to a comparison with the A350.
It's becoming increasingly rare for airlines to configure their planes with first class. However most (possibly all?) A380s were or are configured with first class, making direct comparisons more difficult.
Whether first-class exists on the (10 years older) 777 is neither here nor there.
It's becoming increasingly rare for airlines to configure their planes with first class. However most (possibly all?) A380s were or are configured with first class, making direct comparisons more difficult.
Whether first-class exists on the (10 years older) 777 is neither here nor there.
> Even against the most modern aircraft the A380's fuel consumption per pax per unit distance is likely to be competitive
Just a few weeks ago here on hn there was a discussion about this. Someone claimed the reasons A380 has poorer fuel economy per pax than A350 or B787 are
- older design with less usage of lightweight composites.
- older engine design.
- wing design constrained by need to fit within 80m box (size of airport gate apparently).
- wing design optimized for a lengthened variant (that was never realised).
Just a few weeks ago here on hn there was a discussion about this. Someone claimed the reasons A380 has poorer fuel economy per pax than A350 or B787 are
- older design with less usage of lightweight composites.
- older engine design.
- wing design constrained by need to fit within 80m box (size of airport gate apparently).
- wing design optimized for a lengthened variant (that was never realised).
It's still useful in airports with limited landing slots, like LHR, but i'm guessing landing slot demand won't be a factor in at least the immediate future.
Actually, many countries (notably Australia), have governments dictating to the airports how many landing / people slots will be provisioned on a weekly basis. This is to reduce the demand on hotel quarantining. You would want to fly bigger planes, if you were tightly constrained on landing slots.
[deleted]
I'm sad to see the Queen of the skies go. I do hope that I'll catch a ride on a 747-8 before those get retired too.
Remaining airlines with 747s in passenger service:
- Air China
- Air India
- Asiana
- China Airlines
- Korean
- Lufthansa
- Rossiya
- Thai
- Air China
- Air India
- Asiana
- China Airlines
- Korean
- Lufthansa
- Rossiya
- Thai
Lufthansa, Air China, and Korean Air all have newer 747-8i's too, for what that's worth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747-8#Operators
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747-8#Operators
Basic question - where will all these 747s actually physically go to be retired? Will there be a landfill somewhere with a huge amount of airplane parts? Will they be left to rust in some hangar in the middle of nowhere?
[deleted]
Most of them end up in dry desert areas in the southwest United States: https://www.airplaneboneyards.com/airplane-boneyards-list-an...
Isn't this only for planes with some value left? Either they're for parts or might fly again? Otherwise, wouldn't you just cut up the airframe and sell it for scrap?
Now, composite planes are a different story. I doubt there's any value in scrap carbon fiber.
Now, composite planes are a different story. I doubt there's any value in scrap carbon fiber.
Huh—are these (presumably huge) areas guarded? Am I stupid for wondering what's to stop a group from making off with a plane?
Good luck taking off without fuel and any ground equipment, not to mention any consumables that would have to be replaced after prolonged stay in a desert.
Well, they don’t leave the keys in the ignition ;)
Or fuel in the tank.
And it’s probably being blocked in by other planes. Those desert boneyards don’t park planes with random access in mind.
And it’s probably being blocked in by other planes. Those desert boneyards don’t park planes with random access in mind.
Looks like they leave fuel in the tank if it’s for short term storage, but they drain various fluids if it’s longer term storage. Probably depends on the circumstances.
Precisely—and this circumstance is retirement with no prospect of a quick sale.
At a guess, they’ll probably have limited parts value, only that which would be valuable to operators of 747 freighters. Mainly the engines, if they’re in good nick.
At a guess, they’ll probably have limited parts value, only that which would be valuable to operators of 747 freighters. Mainly the engines, if they’re in good nick.
As a random fun fact planes don't have keys.
Do they have some other authentication mechanism instead?
The authentication method is knowing how to fly said plane and getting in said plane in the first place.
The planes that are relatively accessible aren't flightworthy without effort, and the planes that are flightworthy require violating federal law (in the US) to access them.
The planes that are relatively accessible aren't flightworthy without effort, and the planes that are flightworthy require violating federal law (in the US) to access them.
>and the planes that are flightworthy require violating federal law (in the US) to access them.
That doesn't really answer the question though. Breaking into a house also violates laws, yet it happens all the time. If you've made it onto an airport tarmac, can you just steal a plane?
That doesn't really answer the question though. Breaking into a house also violates laws, yet it happens all the time. If you've made it onto an airport tarmac, can you just steal a plane?
It's logistically very difficult. Getting fuel into it usually takes a special truck, so you'd need access to that (when a plane is parked overnight it would have a little bit of fuel in it, but not enough to get very far after taking off). Even getting into the plane is difficult - you'd need a stair truck, and somebody to move the stairs out of the way when you're in. If it's parked somewhere where you can't just taxi out, you need somebody in a tug to do a pushback.
So assuming you're that far in, and you know how to start it up, you don't have a flight plan logged, so the tower isn't going to give you clearance to take off. If you take off without permission, they're going to call the air force, so you'd better be in a country that doesn't have a very big air force or a nearby base, and you probably want to choose somewhere where you can get into another country's airspace who isn't friendly with the country you stole the plane from...
So assuming you're that far in, and you know how to start it up, you don't have a flight plan logged, so the tower isn't going to give you clearance to take off. If you take off without permission, they're going to call the air force, so you'd better be in a country that doesn't have a very big air force or a nearby base, and you probably want to choose somewhere where you can get into another country's airspace who isn't friendly with the country you stole the plane from...
it's easier than you might think. for example, on a 747 you don't need external stairs, since access is available via the nose wheel landing gear bay [0] according to a pilot.
0. https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/2605/can-large-...
0. https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/2605/can-large-...
It's happened before
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Horizon_Air_Q400_incident
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/12/opinions/seattle-stolen-plane...
> most airlines do not lock airplanes because access can only be obtained by security vetted employees through jet bridges and coded door ramp access.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Horizon_Air_Q400_incident
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/12/opinions/seattle-stolen-plane...
> most airlines do not lock airplanes because access can only be obtained by security vetted employees through jet bridges and coded door ramp access.
I don't think the law was a deterrent to 9/11 te'rists.
Airliners generally do not.
Some small ones do.
For planes that are being retired, they usually take the engines off pretty early because they have some of the most valuable parts for resale in them.
They’d also be drained of all fluids. For planes in storage to be used again later, they fill all the fuel, hydraulic, etc. lines with special liquids to keep them preserved. So it’d be at least a week’s work for a team to get a stored plane going.
They’d also be drained of all fluids. For planes in storage to be used again later, they fill all the fuel, hydraulic, etc. lines with special liquids to keep them preserved. So it’d be at least a week’s work for a team to get a stored plane going.
Most 747s won't be used again.
Could I buy one to have in my backyard?
Any idea on price?
Could I buy one to have in my backyard?
Any idea on price?
Assuming you don’t have a 1500–2000 metre heavy aircraft runway in your backyard, it’s the shipping costs that would likely kill you.
I guess it would have to be disassembled and shipped in pieces.
Unless a cargo blimp can take it. Do such things exist?
Unless a cargo blimp can take it. Do such things exist?
The Airlander 10 wrote off their old prototype, and has a maximum payload of 10 tonnes, whereas an unloaded 747 is about 180 tonnes. Remember it's a plane so big that they used to piggyback the space shuttle orbiters (which are not small) on it.
Sounds like it could be done in 20 trips.
Also sounds like even if they give the plane away, just shipping it will be a ~7 digit expense.
I hereby withdraw my interest!
Also sounds like even if they give the plane away, just shipping it will be a ~7 digit expense.
I hereby withdraw my interest!
I know nothing about this, but there are people who move their houses, surely a plane is easier than that.
I believe just like storing a car for a long time, fluids are drained and other items removed/wrapped for storage. You can't just jump in the cockpit and taxi out to the runway. They are kept in a state that is relatively easy to restore to functioning status but not in functioning status.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I suspect some may be sold to freight lines for conversion but many will end up in aircraft boneyards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_boneyard
This guy could upgrade to a two-story house
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oquV0vvhjh0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oquV0vvhjh0
Google "desert aircraft boneyards". They will be parted out for pieces to keep remaining models of the same type flying, and when that's not economical anymore, they are cut up for aluminum scrap.
They'll almost certainly become cargo carriers. It's the main use for 747s these days.
Can passenger versions get converted to cargo?
edit: hmm, looked into it for a minute, and while it has been done, it doesn't sound very popular at the moment due to cost: http://www.aircargopedia.com/passengertofreightpg.htm https://centreforaviation.com/analysis/reports/air-cargo-boo...
edit: hmm, looked into it for a minute, and while it has been done, it doesn't sound very popular at the moment due to cost: http://www.aircargopedia.com/passengertofreightpg.htm https://centreforaviation.com/analysis/reports/air-cargo-boo...
That was the sales pitch when most observers thought the 747 was going to be the last subsonic long-haul passenger plane. "Don't worry about the supersonic plane we're currently designing, you'll be able to sell your 747 as a great easy-conversion cargo plane once the SST comes out."
Certainly can, even temporarily (this is an A380, but I assume it works for any aircraft).
https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/a380-hi-fly-auxilary-frei...
https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/a380-hi-fly-auxilary-frei...
I wonder if there will be a Cunard-like airline that flies older planes because people want to experience them.
I believe Cunard (part of Carnival) operates the Queen Mary 2, the last running ocean liner on Earth. It does Southampton to New York via traditional Atlantic crossing, just like the Titanic (almost) did. Not sure if it makes money, but (pre-pandemic) it was likely subsidized by other cruise ships or by QM2 cruising herself.
It'd be cool to have a flight from Heathrow to JFK (?) on one 747 for people who want to experience the same plane. I think an airline enthusiast might go several times a year, and there's a goodly number of airline enthusiasts.
I think a flying boat tour of the Pacific islands would be a wicked honeymoon!
I believe Cunard (part of Carnival) operates the Queen Mary 2, the last running ocean liner on Earth. It does Southampton to New York via traditional Atlantic crossing, just like the Titanic (almost) did. Not sure if it makes money, but (pre-pandemic) it was likely subsidized by other cruise ships or by QM2 cruising herself.
It'd be cool to have a flight from Heathrow to JFK (?) on one 747 for people who want to experience the same plane. I think an airline enthusiast might go several times a year, and there's a goodly number of airline enthusiasts.
I think a flying boat tour of the Pacific islands would be a wicked honeymoon!
> I believe Cunard (part of Carnival) operates the Queen Mary 2, the last running ocean liner on Earth. It does Southampton to New York via traditional Atlantic crossing, just like the Titanic (almost) did. Not sure if it makes money, but (pre-pandemic) it was likely subsidized by other cruise ships or by QM2 cruising herself.
I doubt it's subsidized, given how expensive it is. I'm not sure what distinction you're drawing between "cruise ship" and "ocean liner" - I guess in theory the QM2 runs to a timetable while cruise ships run to ad-hoc charter schedules, but in practice those cruise schedules are set years in advance and that timetable can be changed on fairly short notice. When I looked into a round-the-world trip it didn't seem like e.g. Vancouver-Hawaii was going to be any harder than NY-Southampton - in both cases you look at the schedule and book your trip months in advance.
The QM2 is a luxury service but it's not just for enthusiasts - there are plenty of people who can't or don't want to fly, and are willing to pay the price.
I doubt it's subsidized, given how expensive it is. I'm not sure what distinction you're drawing between "cruise ship" and "ocean liner" - I guess in theory the QM2 runs to a timetable while cruise ships run to ad-hoc charter schedules, but in practice those cruise schedules are set years in advance and that timetable can be changed on fairly short notice. When I looked into a round-the-world trip it didn't seem like e.g. Vancouver-Hawaii was going to be any harder than NY-Southampton - in both cases you look at the schedule and book your trip months in advance.
The QM2 is a luxury service but it's not just for enthusiasts - there are plenty of people who can't or don't want to fly, and are willing to pay the price.
QM2 is one of the fastest cruise ships but:
> 41 feet for every gallon
Not great fuel economy either. When multiplied by the 3000 people on board at max capacity that extends efficiency but only to a point.
> 41 feet for every gallon
Not great fuel economy either. When multiplied by the 3000 people on board at max capacity that extends efficiency but only to a point.
Oh there's significant structural differences between cruise ships and ocean liners. Ocean liner's bow is strengthened for travel in adverse seas, and the stern is cupped rather than box-shaped to reduce roll. The superstructure is tapered for better balance, and the engines are optimized for power / speed moreso than vibration / comfort. They're more expensive than cruise ships as a result.
See: https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-ocean-l...
See: https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-ocean-l...
Then presumably those ships doing Vancouver-Hawaii are "ocean liners" in that sense, and the QM2 is by no means "the last running ocean liner on Earth"?
With the exception of RMS Queen Mary 2 (Cunard Line: 2004-present), the ocean liner is nearly extinct.
https://oppositelock.kinja.com/the-last-surviving-transatlan...
https://oppositelock.kinja.com/the-last-surviving-transatlan...
You don't seem to have engaged with the discussion. This was claimed two or three posts back, but what does it actually mean?
Plenty of passenger ships - to give a concrete example, the Spirit class - routinely make transoceanic crossings at a reasonable speed following schedules published years in advance. Perhaps a little slower than the QM2. Perhaps with slightly more onboard amenities. But I can see no clear distinction that justifies this talk of the QM2 being somehow "the last" and qualitatively different from these other ships that do very much the same thing in practice.
Plenty of passenger ships - to give a concrete example, the Spirit class - routinely make transoceanic crossings at a reasonable speed following schedules published years in advance. Perhaps a little slower than the QM2. Perhaps with slightly more onboard amenities. But I can see no clear distinction that justifies this talk of the QM2 being somehow "the last" and qualitatively different from these other ships that do very much the same thing in practice.
It was explained wasn't it? The design parameters are different, as the purpose is different (transportation rather than leisure).
"Bob is the last sheep"
"But I see all these four-legged ruminants wandering around eating grass, what about them?"
"Those are goats"
"You don't seem to have engaged with the discussion..."
"Bob is the last sheep"
"But I see all these four-legged ruminants wandering around eating grass, what about them?"
"Those are goats"
"You don't seem to have engaged with the discussion..."
I responded to that, and then grandparent just reverted to a blank assertion. It's more like:
"Bob is the last sheep"
"But I see all these four-legged ruminants wandering around eating grass, what about them?"
"Those are goats"
"We're shearing them and gathering wool from them; doesn't that make them sheep?"
"Bob is the last sheep"
"You don't seem to have engaged with the discussion..."
"Bob is the last sheep"
"But I see all these four-legged ruminants wandering around eating grass, what about them?"
"Those are goats"
"We're shearing them and gathering wool from them; doesn't that make them sheep?"
"Bob is the last sheep"
"You don't seem to have engaged with the discussion..."
Ocean liner = designed to travel fast. Cruise liner = designed to have lots of amenities.
You can still get long haul flights on 747s, and the Air China ones will probably be around for years.
I've worked in commercial aviation for long enough not to underestimate the size of the aviation enthusiast market, but still doubt they'd want multiple flights a year on what is, apart from the upper deck, a pretty ordinary widebody. Ancient cruise ships are easier to levy massive charges for because they're a multi-day experience benchmarked against already expensive cruises, and it's not like aircraft are easier or cheaper to keep running. The only way you'd keep retro aircraft open as a regular scheduled flight for enthusiasts would be if it mainly served normal passengers, like the ancient 707s that used to operate Iranian domestic routes due to lack of competition and difficulty of obtaining modern aircraft spares under the sanctions regime. Some people went to Iran just to fly on them, but not that many.
The flying boat tour would be great fun for any suitably enthusiastic millionaire though. :D
I've worked in commercial aviation for long enough not to underestimate the size of the aviation enthusiast market, but still doubt they'd want multiple flights a year on what is, apart from the upper deck, a pretty ordinary widebody. Ancient cruise ships are easier to levy massive charges for because they're a multi-day experience benchmarked against already expensive cruises, and it's not like aircraft are easier or cheaper to keep running. The only way you'd keep retro aircraft open as a regular scheduled flight for enthusiasts would be if it mainly served normal passengers, like the ancient 707s that used to operate Iranian domestic routes due to lack of competition and difficulty of obtaining modern aircraft spares under the sanctions regime. Some people went to Iran just to fly on them, but not that many.
The flying boat tour would be great fun for any suitably enthusiastic millionaire though. :D
What's going to happen is that these aircraft will be modified for cargo. The 747 is already one of the world's cargo workhorses.
No 747 has been converted in a few years at the moment and many of those which have been converted have largely been parked up; there's plenty of other aircraft available on the market for the same money that are much cheaper to operate. What demand there is for new 747Fs has largely been met by sales of existing freighters or new-build 747-8Fs.
I don't know if it's still around but there was a company that ran dinner flights on DC3s in Los Angeles for nostalgia.
Actually, googling "DC3 flights" brings up a few companies in different parts of the world.
Actually, googling "DC3 flights" brings up a few companies in different parts of the world.
I imagine those are at least an order of magnitude cheaper to operate/maintain. Still, pretty cool place for a dinner party.
If this existed for the Concorde, I'd get on it.
It would be expensive. A cross Atlantic trip in the early 2000s was around $12000 round trip[0].
[0] https://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/my-ride-on-the-conc...
[0] https://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/my-ride-on-the-conc...
You can easily pay $10000+ for first class as it stands on the same route today
That‘s because it turned out that the range of the Concorde made it so that a 3-hour supersonic bus ride was competing with a 6-hour flight that was a meal service and then a sleep in a lie flat bed.
Sadly, if I had it in the early 2000s I would have done it, but now that I have it I can't.
Terrible for the environment too.
At $12k for what would be a Concorde flight, you might as well pay $17k for a supersonic ride on a MiG-29 once Migflug has them again.
If we're tossing out pie-in-the-sky dreams of retired airplanes we'd pay a lot of hypothetical money to fly on just once, and if military planes are fair game...
...there's simply no competition for the Blackbird.
...there's simply no competition for the Blackbird.
I'm not sure about the Blackbird specifically, but I've been a few times to the Duxford air show and they always have sign-ups for 'long-retired military plane experience flights'. (And I could be wrong but I don't think it's Duxford-specific - seems like they're companies/organisations that do the rounds of similar air shows here & in North America at least.)
Sure there is. I'd go for an XB-70 Valkyrie. Nearly as fast, and a hell of a lot roomier.
Not quite the same, but you can buy a Starfighter.
A-12 ? ;-)
The A-12 and SR-71 are both considered Blackbirds. But the A-12 is a single-seater; only the trainer variants had a second sorta wedged in there.
Yes, I know it's faster. Yes, that makes it cooler. But even in this flight of fancy, I don't imagine myself skilled enough to pilot an A-12 solo.
Yes, I know it's faster. Yes, that makes it cooler. But even in this flight of fancy, I don't imagine myself skilled enough to pilot an A-12 solo.
This is unfortunate news for BA and its fleet and is
reminiscent to the super-sonic concorde days (Which I still miss). I'm a huge fan of Boom Supersonic to take its place. Recently in the UK we lost two airliners to this pandemic, Thomas Cook Airlines and Flybe both fell into the adminstrators.
I guess this looks like magnificent news to flight-shamers and climate-change activists.
I guess this looks like magnificent news to flight-shamers and climate-change activists.
To be clear, Thomas Cook collapsed well before covid. The end[1] occurred on September 23 2019.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Cook_Group#2019:_Final_...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Cook_Group#2019:_Final_...
It's simple -- 2 engine widebodies are more efficient than the 747, and carry less risk of being less than full. And airlines seem to have gotten tired of maintaining 4 engines at a go, for some reason.
4 engines = 2x the maintenance cost, even if you ignore the fuel. And 2x the overhaul cost.
I will miss the BA Club World business class on the upper deck. It was one of the more pleasant and relaxing ways of transatlantic travel.
My wife flew out upstairs from Heathrow to Washington to join me for a short break (I'd been working there for a week) in 2014, which was lovely.
We returned from Baltimore on a 767, immediate response "It's a bit shabby". which even compared with a 747 was entirely accurate.
I still prefer flying out of Baltimore though, much nicer airport, and I seem to get upgraded (either using miles or operational) every time. They've got 787s on the route now - was supposed to fly there this year just as the ban was brought in.
We returned from Baltimore on a 767, immediate response "It's a bit shabby". which even compared with a 747 was entirely accurate.
I still prefer flying out of Baltimore though, much nicer airport, and I seem to get upgraded (either using miles or operational) every time. They've got 787s on the route now - was supposed to fly there this year just as the ban was brought in.
Awesome time to buy a new private jet :-)
My understanding is that many (most?) airlines use a leasing company to "hold" their physical inventory. If this is the case is this really just notice that they are going to break all their leases?
I also wonder, given that the 747 has been EOL'd by Boeing as well, how much one can recover by 'parting out' these 28 planes. Will they live on like the DC-3 did as a 'third party' airline plane or are they just too big to be useful in that way? Could make for a heck of a fire fighting fleet I suppose.
My understanding is that many (most?) airlines use a leasing company to "hold" their physical inventory. If this is the case is this really just notice that they are going to break all their leases?
I also wonder, given that the 747 has been EOL'd by Boeing as well, how much one can recover by 'parting out' these 28 planes. Will they live on like the DC-3 did as a 'third party' airline plane or are they just too big to be useful in that way? Could make for a heck of a fire fighting fleet I suppose.
You don't need to wonder, plenty of active used plane dealers, just like used car dealers...
You can have your own 747 for $12.5M, flight hour operating costs not so friendly.
https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/810282...
Alternatively, this one will run you $275M+ https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/23001/qatari-royal-fli...
You can have your own 747 for $12.5M, flight hour operating costs not so friendly.
https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/810282...
Alternatively, this one will run you $275M+ https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/23001/qatari-royal-fli...
They are widely used as cargo planes which is what they were originally designed for.
True, so the need for spare parts for the cargo fleet will continue for a while. But Boeing won't be making them : https://www.businessinsider.com/50th-anniversary-boeing-747-...
Too bad. I’ve really enjoyed watching BA’s daily LHR to SEA flight come in overhead around 5 or 6pm on weekdays. Sea-Tac doesn’t get too many 747s despite its proximity to Boeing.
Unfortunately actually being in a BA 747 is nowhere near as enjoyable. I'm glad for this.
Qantas has also retired their 747s. They are going to be stored in some desert area with low humidity, and eventually sold for parts.
This surprises me. Surely they could be sold or used at cargo planes?
This surprises me. Surely they could be sold or used at cargo planes?
How are they going to load cargo? Their nose doesnt tilt up like purpose built cargo planes
I don't understand the nostalgia for these planes. I see a big plane and I think "cattle car." There's nothing nice about sitting in the middle section of a huge wide-body plane, far from the luggage bin, far from the window, and with the prospect of climbing over several people or waking them up so you can go to the bathroom. It takes a long time to board and deplane them.
Moreover, as a passenger I want point-to-point air service at a convenient time. This is possible with smaller airplanes. Big plane requires funneling passengers to some big gateway airport so they can fill the gigantic plane. That requires spending time in airports. Not interested.
If the nostalgia is that there's something elite about a big plane: Gordon Gekko didn't fly around in a 747.
There's a reason these planes are obsolete. Planes like the 737 have democratized air travel and made it affordable for everyone. That's a much bigger achievement than the 747 will ever be. And I'll take the convenient frequent long-distance service that narrow-body planes offer (US mainland to Hawaii on a 737? Amazing!) over a 747 any day. A curving staircase on an airplane just doesn't scream "cool" to me.
Moreover, as a passenger I want point-to-point air service at a convenient time. This is possible with smaller airplanes. Big plane requires funneling passengers to some big gateway airport so they can fill the gigantic plane. That requires spending time in airports. Not interested.
If the nostalgia is that there's something elite about a big plane: Gordon Gekko didn't fly around in a 747.
There's a reason these planes are obsolete. Planes like the 737 have democratized air travel and made it affordable for everyone. That's a much bigger achievement than the 747 will ever be. And I'll take the convenient frequent long-distance service that narrow-body planes offer (US mainland to Hawaii on a 737? Amazing!) over a 747 any day. A curving staircase on an airplane just doesn't scream "cool" to me.
You're absolutely correct that passenger experience on these large planes are fairly inferior to modern, smaller ones today (for everyone not in first class) but it's the 747's historical impact that stirs up the nostalgia.
When it first entered service in the 70s, the 747 was the aircraft that democratized travel in its time. Its massive capacity cut ticket prices in half while its range enabled new direct flights.
It's also this engineering marvel. The 747 dwarfed its next closest competitor in size and was not only the first double decker, but also the first widebody plane ever introduced. Engineers in the 60s created it with their pre-CAD tools and modern aircraft are built on their work.
Even though the economics of the plane were terrible, many airlines still flew it because it was such a massive leap forward in progress. Even today, it stands out at airports as a truly iconic design among the other fairly homogenous planes.
While the 747 no longer really fits into today's economic environment, it's still fondly remembered for its role in getting us here.
When it first entered service in the 70s, the 747 was the aircraft that democratized travel in its time. Its massive capacity cut ticket prices in half while its range enabled new direct flights.
It's also this engineering marvel. The 747 dwarfed its next closest competitor in size and was not only the first double decker, but also the first widebody plane ever introduced. Engineers in the 60s created it with their pre-CAD tools and modern aircraft are built on their work.
Even though the economics of the plane were terrible, many airlines still flew it because it was such a massive leap forward in progress. Even today, it stands out at airports as a truly iconic design among the other fairly homogenous planes.
While the 747 no longer really fits into today's economic environment, it's still fondly remembered for its role in getting us here.
> Engineers in the 60s created it with their pre-CAD tools and modern aircraft are built on their work.
Something my dad told be about that plane: "If you took all the drawings required to design the 747, and put them in a 747, it would never get off the ground."
He worked at Boeing in the early 60s, and had a lot of cool stories about how the place ran. Traffic signals synced to the shift changes (on 7-minute intervals) for all employees at the plant. The insane process efficiency required to use a pencil and paper to design a project that complex. Etc.
Something my dad told be about that plane: "If you took all the drawings required to design the 747, and put them in a 747, it would never get off the ground."
He worked at Boeing in the early 60s, and had a lot of cool stories about how the place ran. Traffic signals synced to the shift changes (on 7-minute intervals) for all employees at the plant. The insane process efficiency required to use a pencil and paper to design a project that complex. Etc.
To experience them at their best, you have to fly international first class. I've had the fortune of doing this a number of times on the 747. I've sat upstairs (which is typically business class) and at the very front, which is usually first class. It's fantastic. You have room to stretch and you're treated very well.
Here are a few photos from my Lufthansa first class experience.
https://www.instagram.com/p/B00TFMcHA4a/?igshid=caikqjatjldk
The photos are:
- the famous rubber duckies from the Lufthansa First Class lounge in Frankfurt. They have private bathrooms with full baths that you can use.
- the obligatory outside-by-the-jet photo that you can take when they pick you up in a luxury car on the tarmac (not that white one)
- Seat 1K on a LH 747-800
- The Porsche that they pick you up in when you're changing flights or going to the lounge.
Here are a few photos from my Lufthansa first class experience.
https://www.instagram.com/p/B00TFMcHA4a/?igshid=caikqjatjldk
The photos are:
- the famous rubber duckies from the Lufthansa First Class lounge in Frankfurt. They have private bathrooms with full baths that you can use.
- the obligatory outside-by-the-jet photo that you can take when they pick you up in a luxury car on the tarmac (not that white one)
- Seat 1K on a LH 747-800
- The Porsche that they pick you up in when you're changing flights or going to the lounge.
I remain unimpressed by such 'first class' gimmicks.
A full bath? Wow, English public housing units commonly include a full bath (and 'private bathroom').
Ride in a Porsche? Truly not a big deal.
Air travel should be treated with a Spartan mindset in my opinion. Forget all the fake trappings of luxury which are much better supplied (and enjoyed) on the ground. Forget the fake 'fine dining' which again is easily surpassed in any half decent restaurant on the ground. Easy to go that length of time without needing to eat. The only focus you should have with air travel is safety, environmental comfort (quality of air supply, air pressure, noise) and non-crowdedness. All the rest is, frankly, performance art to distract the easily distracted.
A full bath? Wow, English public housing units commonly include a full bath (and 'private bathroom').
Ride in a Porsche? Truly not a big deal.
Air travel should be treated with a Spartan mindset in my opinion. Forget all the fake trappings of luxury which are much better supplied (and enjoyed) on the ground. Forget the fake 'fine dining' which again is easily surpassed in any half decent restaurant on the ground. Easy to go that length of time without needing to eat. The only focus you should have with air travel is safety, environmental comfort (quality of air supply, air pressure, noise) and non-crowdedness. All the rest is, frankly, performance art to distract the easily distracted.
Somewhat related to your points, I found that a lie-flat bed is highly beneficial for long haul flights, such as US <-> Asia, especially as you get older and your body can't take the punishment of sitting in economy for 13 hours. I would lose a day upon landing when flying economy from being too exhausted and needing to crash, which was greatly mitigated by getting a good sleep lying down. Lie-flat beds are available in business class, so it's much less cost prohibitive.
Yes, lie-flat beds make great sense. And bunks in economy class would make sense too. I'm not talking about giving customers space and real comfort. I'm talking about the 'luxury' pantomime.
Meh it depends how much you fly. Until covid hit I was flying longhaul about twice a month for work, it's very nice to be pampered a bit when you've got to start your week at 5.30am, leave your family for 3 days, and hit the ground running when you arrive
Ooh, how nice for <0.1% of humanity.
International first class is accessible to anyone with a decent US credit history, a somewhat flexible schedule, & an interest in figuring out semi-complex systems. I flew Cathay Pacific first class Toronto => Hong Kong as a recent college grad on a teacher's salary.
so... what percentage of humanity are you purporting your description there covers ;p
Let's say about 7 million people
Any tips for these systems? I'm imagine you are navigating deals and points systems but I dont have much travel expirance yet.
I think you overestimate the high end of that bound.
I flew business class with BA five years ago as it was cheaper than economy on my usual airline at the time (EK) - mainly as it was a last minute booking. I flew two intercontinental legs (Middle East -> Europe -> North America) and both aircraft were on old 747s that looked like they hadn't been cleaned for a week or more. The infotainment system felt just as old, with a choice of maybe 20 movies on the 8" display where the touch screen barely functioned. The lie flat bed wasn't bad (they had an interesting layout where one seat faces foward and the next faces backward), and the food was just regular reheated meals with slightly nicer silverware than economy.
Now I understand some other airlines have better offerings than BA, and if you fly first class (I think for the same flight it was roughly 8x more) it's going to be a different story, but at the end of the day you are still just flying A to B.
The best part was probably the lounge where I had the connection, but I only had 1 1/2 hours so didn't get to experience it much. However it wasn't really much more than a 4* hotel buffet.
If I could afford to drop $20k to fly first class whenever I feel like it, would I? Probably. Do I feel like I'm missing out on anything by not doing that? Nope.
How much more is it to fly in a private jet? I feel that would be a different story, given you can schedule it so it picks you up whenever is convenient for you.
Now I understand some other airlines have better offerings than BA, and if you fly first class (I think for the same flight it was roughly 8x more) it's going to be a different story, but at the end of the day you are still just flying A to B.
The best part was probably the lounge where I had the connection, but I only had 1 1/2 hours so didn't get to experience it much. However it wasn't really much more than a 4* hotel buffet.
If I could afford to drop $20k to fly first class whenever I feel like it, would I? Probably. Do I feel like I'm missing out on anything by not doing that? Nope.
How much more is it to fly in a private jet? I feel that would be a different story, given you can schedule it so it picks you up whenever is convenient for you.
First class is on the way out on many international routes since all the demand and money is in biz class. Ya, you can get your own private cabin with big screen tv and full sized bed (on a Singapore 380 if they still fly those), but most aren’t going to pay for it and are flying on an upgrade (business class is full, bump someone to first!).
Business class is nice because you can sleep on a lie flat, which is the only thing I care about on an 11 hour flight.
Business class is nice because you can sleep on a lie flat, which is the only thing I care about on an 11 hour flight.
>How much more is it to fly in a private jet? I feel that would be a different story, given you can schedule it so it picks you up whenever is convenient for you.
In a recent hn thread about private jets, someone was saying that unless you go all out on a private jet, the experience is almost certainly going to be worse than flying commercial. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23732841
In a recent hn thread about private jets, someone was saying that unless you go all out on a private jet, the experience is almost certainly going to be worse than flying commercial. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23732841
This, definitely. I've flown Emirates A380 first class a few times and done the onboard shower thing. You're drinking $1500/bottle booze and taking a shower on a plane. You're not going to do that on a private jet unless you're the cofounder of Google or an oligarch or a head of (a large) state.
...but, for about $3000-5000, you can experience this on a transatlantic flight. Where else can someone in the upper middle class save their pennies and get to live like royalty for a day? It's a pretty amazing thing.
Well, it _was_ an amazing thing. It's possible that the era of showers and A380s and maybe even international first class as we knew it is gone forever.
Here's what you could get for $3000 if you are ready to be flexible on travel dates and have a knack for obsessive pouring-over of schedules:
https://flickr.com/photos/69697531@N00/sets/7215770666398705...
...but, for about $3000-5000, you can experience this on a transatlantic flight. Where else can someone in the upper middle class save their pennies and get to live like royalty for a day? It's a pretty amazing thing.
Well, it _was_ an amazing thing. It's possible that the era of showers and A380s and maybe even international first class as we knew it is gone forever.
Here's what you could get for $3000 if you are ready to be flexible on travel dates and have a knack for obsessive pouring-over of schedules:
https://flickr.com/photos/69697531@N00/sets/7215770666398705...
Wait, transatlantic first class is only $3000? I paid that for my last (allegedly “premium”) economy ticket on virgin to heathrow.
I’m missing out.
I’m missing out.
LHR to JFK is $3k to $20k. Usually you'll be lucky to get a $3k flight, but they do exist.
I haven't flown BA long haul (in any class) but unfortunately from what I hear they are generally not very well regarded for any of their products (especially premium) and haven't been for quite some time.
Man that Lufthansa pod look cheap. You should try Emirates
Since nobody's mentioned it yet: I find they feel very stable in turbulence. I used to do the SFO-Europe route 10-12 times a year and whenever we were on an A330 and encountered even mild turbulence the food would end up on our face and neighbor's coffee on my lap.
I'm not an aeronautic engineer so I can't explain why but the ride was always smooth on 747s even in otherwise non-ideal conditions. I've flown the 787 since then and I don't even think it handles as well, but not enough data. I will miss it.
I'm not an aeronautic engineer so I can't explain why but the ride was always smooth on 747s even in otherwise non-ideal conditions. I've flown the 787 since then and I don't even think it handles as well, but not enough data. I will miss it.
I flew bi weekly across eu and to asia and US for years and have a very different experience, 747s (must add that these were generally from BA) were noisy and the turbulence flights horrible (including with people crying because it is so noisy which adds to the experience in heavy turbulence); 330/350 (mostly finnair) were silent and nice. I started to pay attention after a few flights and 747s always seem to be more noisy to me so I started to avoid Boeings. Every time when I am in one (usually across eu where I cannot always pick), it is a shitshow: old & noisy and reminding me of a prop plane ride I took over Guatemala where the pilot was drunk and there were animals in back. Good riddance.
Which routes "across EU" use 747s?
Pre-covid, some of the BA flights from London to Madrid were using heavy jets due to freight loads
Yes, but they were 777s, not 747s. Iberia also regularly used widebodies between Madrid and London (A330 and A350) before the pandemic, and has actually recently resumed them - one return trip per day I believe.
I had one even from London to NL because that one was flying on to Indonesia I think and picked up people in Amsterdam.
There used to be a widebody on Madrid to Frankfurt(?) on a South American airline too. Such routes are relatively rare in Europe but do happen. It would be quite a long time since there were any 747s flying Amsterdam to Jakarta though, I think? Before they retired them I think KLM's last 747s were operating on transatlantic routes only.
Edit: realised it was probably Garuda, but if it was recent it's still not a 747 - they don't have any anymore - it would be a 777.
Edit: realised it was probably Garuda, but if it was recent it's still not a 747 - they don't have any anymore - it would be a 777.
It's the wing loading (max takeoff weight / sqft of the wing). The 747-400's is something like 155 lb/sqft vs. 124 for the 787-8. In general, the higher the wing loading the better the ride.
In general yes, but the 777 and 787 have a system to automatically move the inboard aileron to reduce the impact of turbulence.
I concede this is ridiculously pedantic, but the system you're talking about is called "gust supression", and uses the flaperons (not the ailerons) in coordination with the elevators. The ailerons are only used for turning and are so far out that trying to use them for altitude control would probably just move (and stress) the wings.
It's a very cool system though!
It's a very cool system though!
Well, in the ridiculously pedantic sense, flaperons are combined flaps and ailerons so they cover the function of inboard ailerons on the 787. The outboard ones are only used at low speed.
You could be right. Actually I have no idea about the aileron's use in turning at high speed - i would have thought they were, just more subtly? That's the limit of my knowledge :P
I do know however that they are used symmetrically as part of Boeing's "cruise flaps system", which dynamically adjusts all of the control surfaces to optimize wing camber for weight, speed, altitude etc at cruise. Not sure if it's standard equipment.
I do know however that they are used symmetrically as part of Boeing's "cruise flaps system", which dynamically adjusts all of the control surfaces to optimize wing camber for weight, speed, altitude etc at cruise. Not sure if it's standard equipment.
I don't have a 777/787 type rating but nearly all large fly by wire jets have a system that automatically manages aileron movement inboard vs outboard and things like roll spoilers depending on airspeed. The generic concept is part of ATPL training, the airplane specifics are part of the type rating training.
That's also the difference between calling them inboard ailerons (generic theory) and specifically knowing they're flaperons (787 systems knowledge)
That's also the difference between calling them inboard ailerons (generic theory) and specifically knowing they're flaperons (787 systems knowledge)
Most economy seats on a 747 are 3-4-3. It’s really similar to a 777, it’s only the person in a window seat who had to climb over two people, while overhead is similar from either seat since it also goes down the middle. Wide bodies rarely run out of convenient overhead space, especially on international trips that they are mostly used for.
Really all the planes are similar and kind of boring unless you fly an old Russian one.
Really all the planes are similar and kind of boring unless you fly an old Russian one.
I did international first in the 747. Def not ‘cattle car’. The front windows are angled so you can see forward more than usual - it’s surprisingly quiet in the top front and the views were beautiful- you felt like you were floating. I slept well too which is rare (wine may have helped) and fun to think of the engineering that went into these big birds. Only negative is that it is all so over the top - wife and I more comfortable in biz or e+
i’m sorry, did you just sincerely talk about your experience in international first-class as a retort to the cattle car conditions that 95%+ of the passengers on the very same flight as you would’ve experienced?
Not the OP, but I think they mean the first time they flew internationally, it was in a 747?
No, I'm pretty sure they mean international first class, especially since they also mention 'it's surprisingly quiet in the top front', which is where first class is.
that was my thought until:
“Only negative is that it is all so over the top - wife and I more comfortable in biz or e+”
“Only negative is that it is all so over the top - wife and I more comfortable in biz or e+”
Right, they meant that the trappings of first class are so over the top that it makes them uncomfortable.
Odd thing is I thought the 747 was usually configured with biz class upstairs (I got a biz upgrade on a SIN->DPS flight many years ago and flew upstairs) and first class in the front of the main level, so maybe they weren't talking about first class. Or perhaps some airlines have/had 747s with first upstairs.
Odd thing is I thought the 747 was usually configured with biz class upstairs (I got a biz upgrade on a SIN->DPS flight many years ago and flew upstairs) and first class in the front of the main level, so maybe they weren't talking about first class. Or perhaps some airlines have/had 747s with first upstairs.
100% my error - main deck for sure. We also boarded using wrong jetway - I guess there was a first entrance somewhere maybe that was different?
The reference to angled windows with forward view puts them at the lower deck, I think.
Given the average salary on HN seems to be around $500k, why would you fly anywhere else?
As I mentioned in a different thread, I love it because it's so stable. There's no constant shaking or rocking, and you don't get woken up every 5 minutes by random minor turbulence - it just powers through it like the beast that it is.
> wife and I more comfortable in biz or e+
I can relate. Flew A380 in biz with family London to Singapore, 4 seats across the middle, 9 mo old on the outside, then wife, then 3 yr, then me. Great flight
A month later we flew onto Sydney, but there were no Business seats left, instead we had to fly in First. My seat was dirty, during turbulence the pursar woke us and told us we had to remove our sleeping child from his nice safe airline approved car seat (which he'd flown in from London to Singapore) and put him our our lap.
Haven't flown BA F since, or flown them with family, and only taken 18 BA flights in 4 years since then. The 4 years before then I'd taken 243.
Amazing how one bad experience and the inability to get a simple apology can shift your buying habits.
I can relate. Flew A380 in biz with family London to Singapore, 4 seats across the middle, 9 mo old on the outside, then wife, then 3 yr, then me. Great flight
A month later we flew onto Sydney, but there were no Business seats left, instead we had to fly in First. My seat was dirty, during turbulence the pursar woke us and told us we had to remove our sleeping child from his nice safe airline approved car seat (which he'd flown in from London to Singapore) and put him our our lap.
Haven't flown BA F since, or flown them with family, and only taken 18 BA flights in 4 years since then. The 4 years before then I'd taken 243.
Amazing how one bad experience and the inability to get a simple apology can shift your buying habits.
On the 747, wouldn’t “top front” be the cockpit? Angled windows for passengers would be bottom front.
Boeing 747 made intercontinental flights a possibility, thanks to its huge size. Especially trans-pacific flights. Before the 747 you had to do many stops along the way, the 747 brought direct flights. It was truly a game changer, anything that came after was just improvements. There were no direct New-York - Tokyo flights before the 747. And that's not happening on a 737 any time soon.
This is due to simple laws of physics, really: fuel consumption grows with the exposed surface of the plane (roughly growing with the square of its size), while the size of the fuel tanks grows according to the volume (roughly the cube of the plane size). Hence small planes for short trips, big planes for long trips, and very big planes for very long trips. Of course advances in efficiency allows for smaller planes to go further, hence why the A380 failed, the 777X is failing, and even the A350-1000 is having a hard time.
Personaly I find flying on 737 or A320 a pretty horrid experience: 6 seats for one aisle, versus 9 seats (787 or A350) for two aisles in a wide-body. I like walking around, and don't care for windows though, so I guess it's a matter of taste.
This is due to simple laws of physics, really: fuel consumption grows with the exposed surface of the plane (roughly growing with the square of its size), while the size of the fuel tanks grows according to the volume (roughly the cube of the plane size). Hence small planes for short trips, big planes for long trips, and very big planes for very long trips. Of course advances in efficiency allows for smaller planes to go further, hence why the A380 failed, the 777X is failing, and even the A350-1000 is having a hard time.
Personaly I find flying on 737 or A320 a pretty horrid experience: 6 seats for one aisle, versus 9 seats (787 or A350) for two aisles in a wide-body. I like walking around, and don't care for windows though, so I guess it's a matter of taste.
There is a visceral pleasure in the "bigness" of it. The roar of 4 engines, how it stood far above all the smaller jets, like you are in a semi truck in the middle of the road surrounded by compact sedans. More economical planes are awesome and clearly the way forward, but it does not have the same sensual feel as something bigger or faster or louder. It is too abstract.
I get what you're saying, but I think you're missing the point. They're obsolete, yeah, but so is the Commodore 64, the Chevy Stingray, the Saturn V, the Nokia 3310...
It was the symbol of an era. The current era is objectively better -- you're not wrong -- but while nostalgia isn't necessarily rational, it's not irrational either.
It was the symbol of an era. The current era is objectively better -- you're not wrong -- but while nostalgia isn't necessarily rational, it's not irrational either.
Some airlines fitted the upstairs as a special business class (British, United, the old Northwest). The cabin up there had almost a private jet feel.
It was the only plane with an upstairs. I never got to go upstairs. :(
A380s have upstairs. They are being phased out too, but there are still a bunch flying, mostly on international carriers.
Always loved flying a380s
Always loved flying a380s
While the A380 has an upstairs, you board directly to it, not really the same feeling.
I’ve only ever flown on a 380 for a domestic route (Guangzhou to Beijing), couldn’t really tell anything special about it, it was just lots of economy class.
It wasn't the first, the clipper had an upstairs. It's the one we got democratisation on: it helped make cheap worldwide long haul.
I used upstairs a lot. It was nice. Side bins, and quieter.
Upstairs on a 380 is different. The nearest comparator is the Emirates lounge bar up the back.
I used upstairs a lot. It was nice. Side bins, and quieter.
Upstairs on a 380 is different. The nearest comparator is the Emirates lounge bar up the back.
Shame never put a windscreen there.
Radar and other instruments need to go at the front.
Also, glass windscreens are a liability - I imagine damage caused by FOD impact kicked-up on the runway during takeoff to a glass nose would be far more expensive than whatever material they use today is.
Also, glass windscreens are a liability - I imagine damage caused by FOD impact kicked-up on the runway during takeoff to a glass nose would be far more expensive than whatever material they use today is.
Even a fake, electronic window fed from an outdoor camera would be pretty cool.
The IFE screens can show nose (and tail, and wing) cameras though.
I haven't been on a plane that had a projection screen at the front of the cabin in almost 20 years now...
I haven't been on a plane that had a projection screen at the front of the cabin in almost 20 years now...
Tu-104 had a glass nose (for the navigator).
> I want point-to-point air service at a convenient time
Just on this point, there are plenty of people who live near the gigantic airports (like LHR), who experience the big aircraft without connections.
Just on this point, there are plenty of people who live near the gigantic airports (like LHR), who experience the big aircraft without connections.
Are manufacturers still building giant planes these days? I don't follow the industry.
I agree with the middle seat part, after being stuck on an overseas Air India flight with babies on both sides. I just assumed it was bigger because they want to pack more in for long flights.
Smaller plane = better. At least for less close contact, which will be valued more with recent events.
I agree with the middle seat part, after being stuck on an overseas Air India flight with babies on both sides. I just assumed it was bigger because they want to pack more in for long flights.
Smaller plane = better. At least for less close contact, which will be valued more with recent events.
I don't know what 747s have been used for on average, but I associate them with a once-in-a-lifetime trip across the Atlantic. So talking about the merits of smaller planes or not liking "gateway airports" seems irrelevant in the context of that being how you got across an ocean.
> I don't understand the nostalgia for these planes. I see a big plane and I think "cattle car."
Perhaps. But flying business class in the upper deck is definitely not cattle car material.
Perhaps. But flying business class in the upper deck is definitely not cattle car material.
The BA 747's in particular are ghastly by current standards. Glad I won't be stuck in one anymore.
Yes, once you remove the rose tinted glasses you realise just how poor they are (and indeed how poor BA is outside the very newest planes. That said last BA flight I did I got upgraded from permium economy to Business, then moved to First, on a new 4 class A350. Couldn't complain too much.
The 747 is aviation’s Taj Mahal — revered not only for its history but its sheer beauty, which in all the years since its introduction has not even come close to being matched.
I suspect the nostalgia is the same old story: it was big when Baby Boomers were young.
It's a bit sad but not unexpected. I rode on two 747 flight in my life, both pretty memorable. Maybe the mourning for these planes is less about the planes but the kinds of epic flights most people would hop on them for. I rode one from LA to Auckland and back, as well as Chicago to London. Both very memorable trips for me. I'd always choose to ride one when I could. There was a sense of, maybe wrongly, safety in the jumbo having been around for so long, carried so many people safely. Yes they crashed, but most often from what I recall at no fault of the plane.
I flew on one of the early 747SP Sydney to Los Angeles flights in April 1984 which was only feasible because of this amazing aircraft. The London to Hong Kong leg of that trip with a stop-over at Dubai and the amazing run into Kai Tak airport was probably my most memorable flight.
The link to airlinegeeks.com is seting off a number of av warnings for me.
Ironically the 2 times I have flown either of the monster planes (747 or a380) were from Salt Lake City to Jackson Hole, which is a ~25 minute flight. And basically the shortest flight I've ever taken commercially, well that or Cin->Louisville.
When you fly from SLC to JAC, you might have a skiing problem. (Queue the "it's not a problem when you're awesome at it".)
I definitely have a skiing problem, it's the worst. It's not a problem when your good at a thing that's fun that doesnt tear your acl like a piece of string like snowboarding.
But coming from STL the good flights was fly to SLC and then hop in with Delta. Seemed like a lot of places aggregated at a hub and took one giant plane in a day.
But coming from STL the good flights was fly to SLC and then hop in with Delta. Seemed like a lot of places aggregated at a hub and took one giant plane in a day.
And here I thought these would be the ideal planes with enough space for proper physical distancing in pandemic times...
[deleted]
Riding on a British airways 747 was one of the coolest experiences I ever had. The entire cabin had first class level comfort. This will surely be missed.
First sighting in “Die Hard 2” http://www.impdb.org/images/3/32/2016-01-03_03h54_43.jpg
Then flew it a few times. It’s a legend.
The Boeing of today might not be able to do what the Boeing of yesteryear did, getting the 747 series to a 50+ year life.
I say this because of the MAX, and some other behaviours which stem from Boeing moving from an engineering focussed company to a giant shit-show of mergers, stock games, and west-east mindshare collapse (judged from the partisan books & articles I read)
I fly Boeing and Airbus mainly whenever I travel, which used to be 10+ times per year long-haul worldwide. Never felt unsafe and that includes aborted takeoffs, engine fails on the ramp, and airpack breakdowns in-flight necessitating fuel-dump and go-back. These machines work. The FCC mandated engineering around flight safety in operations work.
But.. I trust the 74x and the 380/350 more than I trust the 787 and the MAX because of some spectacularly bad public engineering exposure.
The battery fire story, and the MAX-no-training-needed story are really not good for Boeing.
The whole "if it isn't boeing I am not going" thing is long long past.
on the jumbo, It wasn't the first 'passenger plane with a bump' -there was a couple of precursors in the pre-jet era, including one designed to carry a car in the body and pax up top. And, it wasn't the first with stairs by a long chalk, the flying boats had them as did some of the jet era precursors.
But, it was by far and away the bestest, most successful 4 engine plane. The life extension, (and length extensions!) over the series was amazing. As was the fuel economy and fitout. I think the decision by Lufthansa to re-tool on the 8 series was probably a huge mistake, but then so was QANTAS decision not to take the 777.
Airbus did good work with the 380. I think it is a fantastic ride as a passenger, in all classes, its quiet, and lovely and when full, good economic sense. But its dying from a change in the model.
The 747 is going to have a long life in cargo. I think even without a lift-nose this workhorse has a lot to go yet.
(not a pilot: 20+ year international business traveller perspective)
I say this because of the MAX, and some other behaviours which stem from Boeing moving from an engineering focussed company to a giant shit-show of mergers, stock games, and west-east mindshare collapse (judged from the partisan books & articles I read)
I fly Boeing and Airbus mainly whenever I travel, which used to be 10+ times per year long-haul worldwide. Never felt unsafe and that includes aborted takeoffs, engine fails on the ramp, and airpack breakdowns in-flight necessitating fuel-dump and go-back. These machines work. The FCC mandated engineering around flight safety in operations work.
But.. I trust the 74x and the 380/350 more than I trust the 787 and the MAX because of some spectacularly bad public engineering exposure.
The battery fire story, and the MAX-no-training-needed story are really not good for Boeing.
The whole "if it isn't boeing I am not going" thing is long long past.
on the jumbo, It wasn't the first 'passenger plane with a bump' -there was a couple of precursors in the pre-jet era, including one designed to carry a car in the body and pax up top. And, it wasn't the first with stairs by a long chalk, the flying boats had them as did some of the jet era precursors.
But, it was by far and away the bestest, most successful 4 engine plane. The life extension, (and length extensions!) over the series was amazing. As was the fuel economy and fitout. I think the decision by Lufthansa to re-tool on the 8 series was probably a huge mistake, but then so was QANTAS decision not to take the 777.
Airbus did good work with the 380. I think it is a fantastic ride as a passenger, in all classes, its quiet, and lovely and when full, good economic sense. But its dying from a change in the model.
The 747 is going to have a long life in cargo. I think even without a lift-nose this workhorse has a lot to go yet.
(not a pilot: 20+ year international business traveller perspective)
> But.. I trust the 74x and the 380/350 more than I trust the 787 and the MAX because of some spectacularly bad public engineering exposure.
I've followed the 737 MAX debacle quite a bit. I've also seen a video from someone who used to analyse (private) airplane crashes. He made it really clear that any crash is the result of a multiple of reasons. Meaning, there's no one root cause, there are multiple causes coming together. This unlike business where it's almost always assumed that there's a "root cause" (singular).
One worry of mine is that not enough is done to allow the FAA to properly certify the 737 MAX. There's been (proposed?) changes, but they feel more like window dressing. Other aviation authorities used to follow the FAA, due to the 737 MAX you see that this trust has gone. You've highlighted how the change in culture in Boeing is another cause of this. But aside from that, if this could happen at Boeing, it could (theoretically) just as well happen with Airbus. This again due to a multitude of reasons, how FAA is setup, Boeing changed, competition from Airbus, advantage of reusing an existing type. A lot of reasons could be applicable again, or apply to Airbus.
Aside from really checking the 737 MAX plus other aviation authorities not really trusting the FAA I don't see enough comprehensive changes.
Regarding the 747 and retiring of these planes: it seems every new airplane gives people less space to walk around, less space for luggage, less space in chairs (chair width is important as well!), etc.
I've followed the 737 MAX debacle quite a bit. I've also seen a video from someone who used to analyse (private) airplane crashes. He made it really clear that any crash is the result of a multiple of reasons. Meaning, there's no one root cause, there are multiple causes coming together. This unlike business where it's almost always assumed that there's a "root cause" (singular).
One worry of mine is that not enough is done to allow the FAA to properly certify the 737 MAX. There's been (proposed?) changes, but they feel more like window dressing. Other aviation authorities used to follow the FAA, due to the 737 MAX you see that this trust has gone. You've highlighted how the change in culture in Boeing is another cause of this. But aside from that, if this could happen at Boeing, it could (theoretically) just as well happen with Airbus. This again due to a multitude of reasons, how FAA is setup, Boeing changed, competition from Airbus, advantage of reusing an existing type. A lot of reasons could be applicable again, or apply to Airbus.
Aside from really checking the 737 MAX plus other aviation authorities not really trusting the FAA I don't see enough comprehensive changes.
Regarding the 747 and retiring of these planes: it seems every new airplane gives people less space to walk around, less space for luggage, less space in chairs (chair width is important as well!), etc.
Unfortunately the whole covid situation didn't allow me to have a first long-planned flight on 747 right in April. I booked Qantas 747 just to feel the experience...
Now is seems like there will be no 747 passenger flights anymore and even fate of A380 is under huge question
Now is seems like there will be no 747 passenger flights anymore and even fate of A380 is under huge question
Flown 39 times on a BA 747 to 3 continents in all 4 classes. One flight in Feb 2014 I remember from Mumbai had water pouring from the ceiling on me on takeoff. the planes felt old then. Most recent flight was down to Nairobi and back in 2018, they've been really showing their age for a long time, especially compared with the A350 and 787s I've been flying more recently on Qatar.
But even the objectively superior business class on QR's new planes can't compare with climbing the stairs to the top deck, sitting in 64A [0] with the table and bins next to you for your flight. I first did this in September 2012, on a flight from Moscow to Heathrow. While we were coming in over the North sea I gave the at-seat phone a go -- it still worked (I think they were removed from service a while ago), certainly an experience at the time to be able to talk to someone from mid-air.
My wife and I had a weekend to Seatle in 2014, and bagged seat 1A and 1K at the very nose[1]. I think the 747 is the only plane you can get where you fly in front of the pilot (the A380 cockpit is at the front), and a unique experience.
I wasn't really flying when Concorde was around, and I've always regretted not flying it, but I'm glad I managed to experience both the upper deck and the nosecone on a 747.
(Oh yes, BA's 747 was one of the few planes I've flown on with a window in the toilet)
[0] https://21stcenturyjourneys.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/dsc0...
[1] https://scottmcgee.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/11-ba747-larg...
But even the objectively superior business class on QR's new planes can't compare with climbing the stairs to the top deck, sitting in 64A [0] with the table and bins next to you for your flight. I first did this in September 2012, on a flight from Moscow to Heathrow. While we were coming in over the North sea I gave the at-seat phone a go -- it still worked (I think they were removed from service a while ago), certainly an experience at the time to be able to talk to someone from mid-air.
My wife and I had a weekend to Seatle in 2014, and bagged seat 1A and 1K at the very nose[1]. I think the 747 is the only plane you can get where you fly in front of the pilot (the A380 cockpit is at the front), and a unique experience.
I wasn't really flying when Concorde was around, and I've always regretted not flying it, but I'm glad I managed to experience both the upper deck and the nosecone on a 747.
(Oh yes, BA's 747 was one of the few planes I've flown on with a window in the toilet)
[0] https://21stcenturyjourneys.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/dsc0...
[1] https://scottmcgee.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/11-ba747-larg...
I've flown on the 747 only twice.
The last time was just this year before COVID hit, when a Storm Ciara shut down down London Heathrow for 2 days. I 'volunteered' to postpone my flight without making a fuss, since I absolutely didn't mind extending my v̶a̶c̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ business trip by a couple of days.
Though I was half expecting, half wishing for it, BA bumped me up to business class and that too on the upper deck. I like to think they did that because of the inconvenience they thought they subjected me to. It wasn't a window seat but I couldn't care less. There are only 5 rows of seats upstairs, so it really did feel like being in a private jet, with 2 attendants just for those 5 rows. Especially since the upper deck is a comfortable 2-2 configuration with an extra wide aisle, as opposed to the packed 2-4-2 configuration on the lower deck, even for business class. [1]
That was my last flight this year and I'm grateful that I could have been lucky enough to experience this before the 747s were retired; now I'm left wondering how flying again in economy would feel like having experienced this.
[1] https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/British_Airways/British_Ai...
The last time was just this year before COVID hit, when a Storm Ciara shut down down London Heathrow for 2 days. I 'volunteered' to postpone my flight without making a fuss, since I absolutely didn't mind extending my v̶a̶c̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ business trip by a couple of days.
Though I was half expecting, half wishing for it, BA bumped me up to business class and that too on the upper deck. I like to think they did that because of the inconvenience they thought they subjected me to. It wasn't a window seat but I couldn't care less. There are only 5 rows of seats upstairs, so it really did feel like being in a private jet, with 2 attendants just for those 5 rows. Especially since the upper deck is a comfortable 2-2 configuration with an extra wide aisle, as opposed to the packed 2-4-2 configuration on the lower deck, even for business class. [1]
That was my last flight this year and I'm grateful that I could have been lucky enough to experience this before the 747s were retired; now I'm left wondering how flying again in economy would feel like having experienced this.
[1] https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/British_Airways/British_Ai...
I haven't experienced nosecone on a 747, but have done the Concorde. My partner at the time (1996) worked for BA, and they were struggling to fill the seats for most trips. You probably know, but the BA service was 100 seats, and entirely first class.
The trip was LHR to JFK.
Pricing was ludicrous -- I think around AUD $600 (one way). This would have been 10% of list. The joys of ID90.
I have a handful of recollections. Most of the seats were empty. I could not stand fully upright in the aisle (I'm 188cm, or ~ 6'2"). Breakfast was delicious, and it was five courses. The whole flight was very noisy. At cruising altitude I was sure I was seeing curvature of the planet (I concede this may have been wishful thinking, or an artefact of the windows).
It was about four hours, and you really did land before you took off, on that particular leg.
At the time - young & holidaying - this wasn't as big a deal as it would have been in more recent years, when work obligations transformed travel from enchantingly wondrous, to onerous obligation.
The trip was LHR to JFK.
Pricing was ludicrous -- I think around AUD $600 (one way). This would have been 10% of list. The joys of ID90.
I have a handful of recollections. Most of the seats were empty. I could not stand fully upright in the aisle (I'm 188cm, or ~ 6'2"). Breakfast was delicious, and it was five courses. The whole flight was very noisy. At cruising altitude I was sure I was seeing curvature of the planet (I concede this may have been wishful thinking, or an artefact of the windows).
It was about four hours, and you really did land before you took off, on that particular leg.
At the time - young & holidaying - this wasn't as big a deal as it would have been in more recent years, when work obligations transformed travel from enchantingly wondrous, to onerous obligation.
> At cruising altitude I was sure I was seeing curvature of the planet (I concede this may have been wishful thinking, or an artefact of the windows).
Many people have reported this, and it's widely publicised so perhaps not so wishful! https://www.ft.com/content/8a96c13e-2623-11e9-b20d-5376ca521... - for example.
Many people have reported this, and it's widely publicised so perhaps not so wishful! https://www.ft.com/content/8a96c13e-2623-11e9-b20d-5376ca521... - for example.
What do you mean by seeing a curve? If I look at the Earth from the top of a mountain I see a curved horizon, same if I look at it from The Moon.
I've had water pour on my on a BA 747. Was quite a few years ago but it's caused by condensation which then finds a way out when the plane takes off and tilts upwards.
Yes it's condensation and happens on every airliner, but the water is normally contained by the thermal insulation and runs behinds the panels down to the bilge area (at the bottom of the fuselage barrel). Some issues in the insulation condition or installation can result in water dropping in the cabin.
Interesting, thanks! Did always wonder why sometimes you can hear some running water in the panels. I always assumed it was something on the outside of the plane.
This happened to me on an emirates A380, but on landing. The timing was comical because immediately after touching down (and being rained on) the entertainment screen prompts you to rate your flight.
On a flight from LAX to China, I saw condensation of nearly a gallon of water pour out of an overhead compartment and drench a row of seats. The flight was full, and the soaked people had to stay put.
Virgin still have 747s with the nose configuration AFAIK, and it felt pretty modern to me. It's unreal how quiet and smooth the ride is in the front of a 747. Well worth the experience.
Virgin retired its 747s in May:
https://thepointsguy.com/news/virgin-retires-747s-closes-lgw...
https://thepointsguy.com/news/virgin-retires-747s-closes-lgw...
I last travelled on a BA 747 back in February - first time on the top deck in Club World and despite being an old aircraft, the top deck is a pretty special experience; it feels like a private jet, very few seats, excellent service.
Top deck on an A380, whilst a far more comfortable experience with the lower noise and better air, doesn't quite compare.
Top deck on an A380, whilst a far more comfortable experience with the lower noise and better air, doesn't quite compare.
It's a good sign, in a way, that airlines have to quickly retire older inefficient airplanes, and many could come out of this leaner and ultimately stronger.
Managed to get one transatlantic Lufthansa 748 flight - horrible experience, seats incredibly cramped. And one transatlantic Air France 388 - got middle seat, but with wall in front = lot of legroom, + alcohol for free = overall pleasant flight :-)
Managed to get one transatlantic Lufthansa 748 flight - horrible experience, seats incredibly cramped. And one transatlantic Air France 388 - got middle seat, but with wall in front = lot of legroom, + alcohol for free = overall pleasant flight :-)
One of my playlists is called "64K", after the seat I had on my first BA 747 flight two years ago, AUS>LHR, my second ever trip in Business Class. I prepared the music in advance to download it, all nice relaxing tracks (Aimee Mann / Feist / Beth Gibbons / Norah Jones). I was super excited for the flight, and really happy that 64K was available, it was supposedly one of the best business class seats on the plane. Upper deck, window seat, last one on the right. No need to step over anyone, near-perfect privacy, a massive amount of storage space, and first in line to get off the plane.
I put on my playlist in shuffle after dinner, and drifted away into a very nice, long, uninterrupted sleep. When I woke up my breakfast was ready and waiting for me on the big surfaces below the windows. BA Club World has it's issues, but that flight was so memorably that I renamed my playlist from "Night Tunes" to "64K" to remember it.
I put on my playlist in shuffle after dinner, and drifted away into a very nice, long, uninterrupted sleep. When I woke up my breakfast was ready and waiting for me on the big surfaces below the windows. BA Club World has it's issues, but that flight was so memorably that I renamed my playlist from "Night Tunes" to "64K" to remember it.
Beth Gibbons is not a name I usually see called out as a solo artist -- to be honest, until today I didn't know she had done any solo work, despite Portishead's Dummy being in my most played albums every year since software started keeping track of that kind of thing for me.
Thanks for causing me to Google that. Now I've got something "new" to listen to while I make breakfast.
Thanks for causing me to Google that. Now I've got something "new" to listen to while I make breakfast.
The album "Out Of Season" she did with Rustin Man is really good, all of her tracks on my 64K playlist are from that one.
Some of the things I’ll miss about the 747:
The speed. They fly at 580mph cruising. The others are around 550mph. I confirmed this in the IFE.
Cabin pressure. It was higher than the 777 and A380. It just felt better and less headache inducing.
Upper deck. I’m going to miss club world. We travel as a family and it felt so intimate being able to sit together and not packed in like tuna.
The speed. They fly at 580mph cruising. The others are around 550mph. I confirmed this in the IFE.
Cabin pressure. It was higher than the 777 and A380. It just felt better and less headache inducing.
Upper deck. I’m going to miss club world. We travel as a family and it felt so intimate being able to sit together and not packed in like tuna.
speed? seriously, you as a passenger have no chance to anyhow notice it or benefit from it. the difference is so negligible, that it basically never has any effect.
I've flown a lot domestically in my life, but because I live in the middle of the US (Houston), I've almost NEVER been on a super large plane like a 747. I'm kind of sad about that.
In the last few years I've been on a few big Airbus planes going to the mideast or the UK; they're nice. But they're not the icons that the 747 was.
In the last few years I've been on a few big Airbus planes going to the mideast or the UK; they're nice. But they're not the icons that the 747 was.
This news story has interesting timing. It’s also got a long segment on the TV news right now
It comes right after the leader of the opposition highlighted during PMQs that BA have forced new, worse contracts on 30,000 staff
It comes right after the leader of the opposition highlighted during PMQs that BA have forced new, worse contracts on 30,000 staff
I've flown internationally a LOT. My only time ever being on a 747 was on BA, and it was really amazing being on a double-decker with the business lounge area. The 747 is truly a remarkable plane, and one of the most comfortable flights transatlantic flights I've ever been on. I'm sad to see it go. This follows on the heels of Delta here in the US retiring the Mad Dogs (MD88 & MD90) as well as their 777 fleet. Lots of shake-ups in the airline industry, I'm not sure that all of them are good.
I was lucky enough to fly business on the top deck of a 747. I remember it felt like driving a building down the runway compared to the A380, regardless the 747 will always have a special place in my heart <3
I guess they meant "aren't".