5 ms·

For anyone wondering why airlines are retiring the 747 this Wikipedia section summarizes it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747-400#Retirement_and_economi

by avar 9y ago

For anyone wondering why airlines are retiring the 747 this Wikipedia section summarizes it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747-400#Retirement_and_economic_value https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747-400#Retirement_and_... Summary: Old, inefficient, less need for jumbo jets. Everyone's either buying smaller or migrating to the modern Airbus A380.

joezydeco 9y ago
Remember that Boeing's original plan was to use the 747 as a freighter. Passengers would fly on supersonic jets like their prototype 2707 SST. This is why the 747's cockpit is on top, it provided a continuous open tube for cargo underneath. http://www.nycaviation.com/newspage/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/06-Cathay-NoseDoor.jpg http://www.nycaviation.com/newspage/wp-content/uploads/2015/...
- louithethrid 9y ago
  Has there ever been a flying wing approach to freight flights?
  - Animats 9y ago
    There have been proposals. Here's the Lockheed Spanloader concept.[1] Never built. The idea comes around again every once in a while.[2] [1] https://books.google.com/books?id=jWlaIWwcsiwC&pg=PA112 https://books.google.com/books?id=jWlaIWwcsiwC&pg=PA112 [2] https://books.google.com/books?id=C0gUyoYewhoC&pg=PT183 https://books.google.com/books?id=C0gUyoYewhoC&pg=PT183
  - nradov 9y ago
    The trouble with flying wings is the fuselage tends to be too short for carrying a lot of cargo. You can't put heavy cargo outboard in the wings because then it's tough to balance the load and the high rotational inertia makes roll control difficult. Flying wings work fine for bombers because the "cargo" is very dense and will fit into a short bomb bay.
- gist 9y ago
  > Remember that Boeing's original plan was to use the 747 as a freighter. You have to wonder actually if that is even true (I've heard it as well obviously). Reason being Boeing may have been thinking SST wouldn't work or be practical (after all it wasn't) but it was easier to sell a 747 based on saying it could be used as a freighter primarily. If they had said it was just another long range high capacity plane the project might have never gotten approval because of the 'bet the company' risk.
  - mannykannot 9y ago
    No-one could say it was just another long range high capacity plane, as there was nothing comparable. And at the time, Boeing was spending a lot of money on a specific Mach 3 SST project - it was only later that it concluded that it wasn't feasible.
  - joezydeco 9y ago
    The upper cockpit is a huge aerodynamic drag compared to previous designs. Perhaps the 747 was a hedge (and it turned out to be a good one if so), but the design kind of implies otherwise IMO.
  - Animats 9y ago
    There are, of course, Boeing 747 freighters. [1] [1] http://www.boeing.com/commercial/freighters/ http://www.boeing.com/commercial/freighters/
- _Codemonkeyism 9y ago
  The form of a 747 is the result of technology studies for the Air Force CX-HLS program http://www.boeingimages.com/archive/CX-HLS-Transport-Study-2F3XC5KU5ID.html http://www.boeingimages.com/archive/CX-HLS-Transport-Study-2...
DaiPlusPlus 9y ago
The A380 isn't that popular either. The A380 only makes sense for really popular routes with a guaranteed high passenger count, whereas the 787 is more flexible because it has a similar range and takes less passengers but is almost as efficient per passenger-mile. And in 2016 there were fears Airbus might even cancel the A380 entirely: https://qz.com/782361/airbus-a380-airlines-are-abandoning-the-worlds-biggest-passenger-plane/ https://qz.com/782361/airbus-a380-airlines-are-abandoning-th...
- gsnedders 9y ago
  > The A380 isn't that popular either. The A380 only makes sense for really popular routes with a guaranteed high passenger count, whereas the 787 is more flexible because it has a similar range and takes less passengers but is almost as efficient per passenger-mile. Also with airports where you're slot limited, and hence operating a single aircraft is easier.
  - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
    This is why they fly the 380 for some domestic flights (e.g. Beijing to Guangzhou). The only one I've been on actually.
  - isostatic 9y ago
    To an extent, but Ba don't use the a380 on Heathrow to New York, despite being one of the busiest long haul routes and LHr (and I assume JFK) being full. High profit passengers value the near hourly service. They use them on long routes with low frequency but lots of connections - singapore, Joburg, LAX. A380 definitely works for hub and spokes though - emirates run about 10 a380 flights to the uk every day.
- FabHK 9y ago
  The A380 was a bet on hub-and-spoke (Emirates is the biggest A380 operator, with all flights going to/from Dubai), while the B787 was a bet on point-to-point.
  - 9y ago
inferiorhuman 9y ago
That and the fact that to be legal to fly in the US (possibly elsewhere) as of 2018, they'll need an expensive fuel tank inerting system retrofitted.
- jessriedel 9y ago
  This was interesting, thanks. For others: "inerting" is process of keeping fuel tanks filled with inert gases like nitrogen to decrease the change of a fuel tank explosion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inerting_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inerting_system Have been talked about for many years, but became a formal rule only recently. https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/aviation-international-news/2011-01-27/faa-finally-takes-action-fuel-inerting https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/aviation-internation...
- pirocks 9y ago
  Why is this necessary. I take it 747s have been safe up til now?
  - avar 9y ago
    The reason the FAA considered fuel tank inerting in the first place is because of a 1996 crash of a 747 that killed 230 people[1], and which is thought to have been avoided had the tanks been inert[2]. Other 747s were lost to the same issue, such as the ULF48 that crashed in 1976 killing all aboard[3]. To answer your question, no, the 747 is not "safe". No aircraft ever made is "safe". They will all crash and kill people given sufficient flight hours. The question is what we consider acceptable risk, those standards change over time as technology improves, and as regulators phase out older models by sunsetting certain exceptions. As that's done older aircraft either need to be retrofitted, or sold to jurisdictions with laxer rules. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inerting_system#Aircraft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inerting_system#Aircraft 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747_hull_losses#1970s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747_hull_losses#1970s
    - 9y ago

by avar 9y ago

joezydeco 9y ago

Remember that Boeing's original plan was to use the 747 as a freighter. Passengers would fly on supersonic jets like their prototype 2707 SST. This is why the 747's cockpit is on top, it provided a continuous open tube for cargo underneath. http://www.nycaviation.com/newspage/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/06-Cathay-NoseDoor.jpg http://www.nycaviation.com/newspage/wp-content/uploads/2015/...

louithethrid 9y ago
Has there ever been a flying wing approach to freight flights?
- Animats 9y ago
  There have been proposals. Here's the Lockheed Spanloader concept.[1] Never built. The idea comes around again every once in a while.[2] [1] https://books.google.com/books?id=jWlaIWwcsiwC&pg=PA112 https://books.google.com/books?id=jWlaIWwcsiwC&pg=PA112 [2] https://books.google.com/books?id=C0gUyoYewhoC&pg=PT183 https://books.google.com/books?id=C0gUyoYewhoC&pg=PT183
- nradov 9y ago
  The trouble with flying wings is the fuselage tends to be too short for carrying a lot of cargo. You can't put heavy cargo outboard in the wings because then it's tough to balance the load and the high rotational inertia makes roll control difficult. Flying wings work fine for bombers because the "cargo" is very dense and will fit into a short bomb bay.
gist 9y ago
> Remember that Boeing's original plan was to use the 747 as a freighter. You have to wonder actually if that is even true (I've heard it as well obviously). Reason being Boeing may have been thinking SST wouldn't work or be practical (after all it wasn't) but it was easier to sell a 747 based on saying it could be used as a freighter primarily. If they had said it was just another long range high capacity plane the project might have never gotten approval because of the 'bet the company' risk.
- mannykannot 9y ago
  No-one could say it was just another long range high capacity plane, as there was nothing comparable. And at the time, Boeing was spending a lot of money on a specific Mach 3 SST project - it was only later that it concluded that it wasn't feasible.
- joezydeco 9y ago
  The upper cockpit is a huge aerodynamic drag compared to previous designs. Perhaps the 747 was a hedge (and it turned out to be a good one if so), but the design kind of implies otherwise IMO.
- Animats 9y ago
  There are, of course, Boeing 747 freighters. [1] [1] http://www.boeing.com/commercial/freighters/ http://www.boeing.com/commercial/freighters/
_Codemonkeyism 9y ago
The form of a 747 is the result of technology studies for the Air Force CX-HLS program http://www.boeingimages.com/archive/CX-HLS-Transport-Study-2F3XC5KU5ID.html http://www.boeingimages.com/archive/CX-HLS-Transport-Study-2...

DaiPlusPlus 9y ago

The A380 isn't that popular either. The A380 only makes sense for really popular routes with a guaranteed high passenger count, whereas the 787 is more flexible because it has a similar range and takes less passengers but is almost as efficient per passenger-mile. And in 2016 there were fears Airbus might even cancel the A380 entirely: https://qz.com/782361/airbus-a380-airlines-are-abandoning-the-worlds-biggest-passenger-plane/ https://qz.com/782361/airbus-a380-airlines-are-abandoning-th...

gsnedders 9y ago
> The A380 isn't that popular either. The A380 only makes sense for really popular routes with a guaranteed high passenger count, whereas the 787 is more flexible because it has a similar range and takes less passengers but is almost as efficient per passenger-mile. Also with airports where you're slot limited, and hence operating a single aircraft is easier.
- seanmcdirmid 9y ago
  This is why they fly the 380 for some domestic flights (e.g. Beijing to Guangzhou). The only one I've been on actually.
- isostatic 9y ago
  To an extent, but Ba don't use the a380 on Heathrow to New York, despite being one of the busiest long haul routes and LHr (and I assume JFK) being full. High profit passengers value the near hourly service. They use them on long routes with low frequency but lots of connections - singapore, Joburg, LAX. A380 definitely works for hub and spokes though - emirates run about 10 a380 flights to the uk every day.
FabHK 9y ago
The A380 was a bet on hub-and-spoke (Emirates is the biggest A380 operator, with all flights going to/from Dubai), while the B787 was a bet on point-to-point.
- 9y ago

inferiorhuman 9y ago

That and the fact that to be legal to fly in the US (possibly elsewhere) as of 2018, they'll need an expensive fuel tank inerting system retrofitted.

jessriedel 9y ago
This was interesting, thanks. For others: "inerting" is process of keeping fuel tanks filled with inert gases like nitrogen to decrease the change of a fuel tank explosion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inerting_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inerting_system Have been talked about for many years, but became a formal rule only recently. https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/aviation-international-news/2011-01-27/faa-finally-takes-action-fuel-inerting https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/aviation-internation...
pirocks 9y ago
Why is this necessary. I take it 747s have been safe up til now?
- avar 9y ago
  The reason the FAA considered fuel tank inerting in the first place is because of a 1996 crash of a 747 that killed 230 people[1], and which is thought to have been avoided had the tanks been inert[2]. Other 747s were lost to the same issue, such as the ULF48 that crashed in 1976 killing all aboard[3]. To answer your question, no, the 747 is not "safe". No aircraft ever made is "safe". They will all crash and kill people given sufficient flight hours. The question is what we consider acceptable risk, those standards change over time as technology improves, and as regulators phase out older models by sunsetting certain exceptions. As that's done older aircraft either need to be retrofitted, or sold to jurisdictions with laxer rules. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inerting_system#Aircraft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inerting_system#Aircraft 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747_hull_losses#1970s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747_hull_losses#1970s
  - 9y ago