6 ms·

It’s a little sad that we’ve retired the 747, the Concorde, and (almost) the A380. And we haven’t introduced anything cool :(

Tiltowait-- 6y ago
The Concorde was done in by fuel prices, and because it was a small aircraft. I visited one in a museum and it was claustrophobic. Also nobody should be sorry that elites have to sit on long overseas flights just like we do. The A380 was a boondoggle from the beginning, an attempt to outdo Boeing by having TEH BIGGEREST aircraft on the market. Having to rebuild airports to accommodate it wasn't a good idea. The 747 is a 1960s design, for Pete's sake. How long were we planning on keeping it around?
- Scramblejams 6y ago
  When I worked in aerospace I was told by a Boeing old-timer that he was sure Boeing only made the 747-700X proposal last as long as it did in order to force Airbus into making the A380 mistake, and that none of the Boeing insiders thought a plane that big would ever make real sense to spend money developing. Naturally I have no way to verify this, but it's a fun corporate strategy conspiracy theory.
  - gsnedders 6y ago
    I don't think there's any question that it was a response to the A380, and it's quite plausible they wouldn't have developed it without the A380. That said, compared with the A380 development the 747-8 will have been cheap to develop, and had an impact on the market as a whole even if it scarcely made much money.
  - coin 6y ago
    Yup https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUmJ9rSVrKQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUmJ9rSVrKQ
  - Tiltowait-- 6y ago
    It's pretty sad how Airbus defines themselves in comparison to Boeing, and Europeans define themselves in comparison to Americans in general. They don't have much identity of their own other than "screw you America! I'm the opposite of whatever you stand for!" It's so small-minded and petty, but unfortunately it's reality.
- bobthepanda 6y ago
  The 747 was updated recently: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747-8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747-8 The major issue with the jumbo planes' (passenger) variants is that twin-engines now have significantly increased range, and have half the fuel consumption to boot. It's a lot easier to sell premium direct tickets rather than convince people to transfer onto a large cattle-class jumbo jet. Even pre-point to point, actually filling up a jumbo jet could be quite difficult, so now the death knell has been a long time coming, unless you're a Middle Eastern carrier operating the super-long-haul hub model.
- jlcummings 6y ago
  The B52 first was first rolled out for production use on 18 March 1954. The "...long-rifle of the air age..." -- Nathan Twining. It has not been manufactured since 1962. They are still in active military service, the ones that remain, and continue to see upgrades and evolving mission scope. 100 years of service is feasible. Cost per flying hour of a modern B52: $70,000 [1] 1. https://www.airforcemag.com/article/re-engining-the-b-52/ https://www.airforcemag.com/article/re-engining-the-b-52/
  - imtringued 6y ago
    It's very easy to upgrade a strategic bomber. All strategic bombers are prone to interception so the only way to stand out is by having a bigger and modern payload. You can see the same development with tank cannons. Bigger calibers aren't necessary. The Rheinmetall 120mm cannon can be upgraded by simply shooting modern munition.
  - gsnedders 6y ago
    They also spend comparatively little time in the air. Compared with passenger aircraft where their return-on-investment strongly incentivises them being airborne as much as possible, military aircraft spend _a lot_ of time sitting around, either unused or in maintenance.
- manigandham 6y ago
  747 has been continually updated but the all modern airliners still have the same fundamental design. > "Also nobody should be sorry that elites have to sit on long overseas flights just like we do." Anyone can fly as long as they can pay for the ticket. First-class passengers subsidize economy seats for most flights, and new tech generally starts with wealthier early-adopters before it becomes accessible for everyone. By the way, if you live in the West then you're an "elite" compared to billions. Let's drop the classism.
- hermitdev 6y ago
  > I visited one in a museum and it was claustrophobic. I also got to do a walk through in the Air and Space Museum over a decade ago. It's deinitely a tight space amd the seats were tiny. I'm not terribly tall, about 6 feet, and I had to hunch over to avoid hitting my head.
- mulmen 6y ago
  > Also nobody should be sorry that elites have to sit on long overseas flights just like we do. Or we could all be flying supersonic because of the economies of scale.
- hodgesrm 6y ago
  > The 747 is a 1960s design, for Pete's sake. How long were we planning on keeping it around? Sometimes old designs are pretty good. The C-130 Hercules rolled out in 1956. It's still in service in the US and other air forces. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_C-130_Hercules https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_C-130_Hercules
mantap 6y ago
I won't weep too many tears for the 747 but the A380 is seriously pleasant to fly on. It will be sad if it doesn't come back post COVID-19.
- ptmcc 6y ago
  It didn't make economic sense for most airlines pre-COVID, and I doubt that'll change post-COVID. It was already in rapid decline.
  - FabHK 6y ago
    But it was a great plane to fly on for pax.
fsckboy 6y ago
the 787 all-composite is very cool; it's just sad that it's too expensive to retool the rest of the product offerings. And it's cool that Boeing figured out 20 yrs ago that point-to-point would kill hub-and-spoke (not least because it's a great way to fly) and very sad that Airbus wasted so much money and people's careers on an ego driven white elephant that Boeing already told them wasn't going to work, instead of using that money to push the real envelope.
vladvasiliu 6y ago
The A380 is as good as retired. Production was scheduled to stop in 2021 since 2019 [0]. It seems to have been advanced by the coronavirus crisis [1]. Air France has stopped flying the A380 [2]. [0] Airbus announces stopping production of A380 in 2021: https://www.capital.fr/entreprises-marches/airbus-annonce-la-fin-de-la-production-de-la380-fin-des-livraisons-en-2021-1327539 https://www.capital.fr/entreprises-marches/airbus-annonce-la... [1] Coronavirus gives the final blow to the A380 https://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-eco/le-coronavirus-donne-le-coup-de-grace-a-l-a380-20200429 https://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-eco/le-coronavirus-donne-le-co... [2] Air France flies the A380 for the last time https://www.lefigaro.fr/societes/air-france-fait-voler-l-a380-pour-la-derniere-fois-20200625 https://www.lefigaro.fr/societes/air-france-fait-voler-l-a38...
- kzrdude 6y ago
  Stopped flying it? That sounds dire. Smaller planes, like the smaller airbuses, serve for 25-30 years, right, so why wouldn't the A380 serve them for longer?
  - gsnedders 6y ago
    The economics were already marginal. You basically _have_ to fill the aircraft to justify its significantly higher operating costs over large twinjets today (and the fact that no airline has many means you lose many economies of scale). In addition, many of Air France's were some of the earliest airframes constructed, some of them non-standard compared with later aircraft. With COVID-19 and an expecting reduction in travel lasting a number of years, all airlines are downsizing. An aircraft that's already marginal makes a lot of sense to drop, even it means letting it go while young. They're effectively getting replaced by the A350-900s Air France has on order which are _vastly_ more fuel efficient per passenger.
    - jabl 6y ago
      Any idea why the A380 is so fuel inefficient? It's a relatively recent design with modern engines etc., no? (I've flown once on an A350. Very nice plane)
jrockway 6y ago
I don't think it's that disappointing. The airlines moved from larger flights to more frequent flights between more destinations. These days, you can miss a transcontinental flight and only be an hour late to your destination, because there are 15 flights a day instead of 2. You are also likely to be able to fly non-stop between any two city pairs. (I looked some up at random, and you can do things like Montreal - Casablanca nonstop instead of Montreal-Toronto-LHR-Casablanca; probably cutting your door-to-door time in half.) Losing Concorde was unfortunate, but there were just too many limitations to make it viable. Flying supersonic means you produce a shockwave that breaks stuff on the ground, limiting it to flying supersonic over oceans. Flying supersonic means that you have to produce kinetic energy that goes up like the square of your speed, meaning you need more fuel, and you need more fuel to carry the fuel. It barely worked for JFK-LHR (relatively short distance, mostly over the ocean), and there just weren't other routes where it was viable. With no viable routes, it wasn't going to sell in any volume, and there is some critical amount of volume you need to justify the program (some fixed human overhead for every airframe project; if you sell 10000 of them, that rounds to zero, if you sell only 20 of them, that rounds to a lot). Might be pessimistic but I don't think we'll ever see a supersonic airliner again. The sonic boom kills them. Those people that want to drill tunnels through the earth to get better-than-great-circle distances might be the future. But I'll probably be dead before anyone gets funding to do that.
- noizejoy 6y ago
  > Those people that want to drill tunnels through the earth to get better-than-great-circle distances might be the future. Might also get a little warm and you'd fight a lot of pressure, since you'd need to dig down about 1/3rd of the distance you'd want to save (assuming my elementary geometry memories aren't failing me). So to save 600km distance, you'd have to go down to a max depth of almost 200km. For context, the deepest bore hole drilled to date seems to be about 12km deep. [0] So technology would have to improve a lot before global warming or the next meteor get us all. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kola_Superdeep_Borehole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kola_Superdeep_Borehole
- jabl 6y ago
  If this SABRE hybrid rocket engine thing takes off (pun intended), then maybe we could have some kind of "semi-ballistic" long range flights?

Tiltowait-- 6y ago

The Concorde was done in by fuel prices, and because it was a small aircraft. I visited one in a museum and it was claustrophobic. Also nobody should be sorry that elites have to sit on long overseas flights just like we do. The A380 was a boondoggle from the beginning, an attempt to outdo Boeing by having TEH BIGGEREST aircraft on the market. Having to rebuild airports to accommodate it wasn't a good idea. The 747 is a 1960s design, for Pete's sake. How long were we planning on keeping it around?

Scramblejams 6y ago
When I worked in aerospace I was told by a Boeing old-timer that he was sure Boeing only made the 747-700X proposal last as long as it did in order to force Airbus into making the A380 mistake, and that none of the Boeing insiders thought a plane that big would ever make real sense to spend money developing. Naturally I have no way to verify this, but it's a fun corporate strategy conspiracy theory.
- gsnedders 6y ago
  I don't think there's any question that it was a response to the A380, and it's quite plausible they wouldn't have developed it without the A380. That said, compared with the A380 development the 747-8 will have been cheap to develop, and had an impact on the market as a whole even if it scarcely made much money.
- coin 6y ago
  Yup https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUmJ9rSVrKQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUmJ9rSVrKQ
- Tiltowait-- 6y ago
  It's pretty sad how Airbus defines themselves in comparison to Boeing, and Europeans define themselves in comparison to Americans in general. They don't have much identity of their own other than "screw you America! I'm the opposite of whatever you stand for!" It's so small-minded and petty, but unfortunately it's reality.
bobthepanda 6y ago
The 747 was updated recently: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747-8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747-8 The major issue with the jumbo planes' (passenger) variants is that twin-engines now have significantly increased range, and have half the fuel consumption to boot. It's a lot easier to sell premium direct tickets rather than convince people to transfer onto a large cattle-class jumbo jet. Even pre-point to point, actually filling up a jumbo jet could be quite difficult, so now the death knell has been a long time coming, unless you're a Middle Eastern carrier operating the super-long-haul hub model.
jlcummings 6y ago
The B52 first was first rolled out for production use on 18 March 1954. The "...long-rifle of the air age..." -- Nathan Twining. It has not been manufactured since 1962. They are still in active military service, the ones that remain, and continue to see upgrades and evolving mission scope. 100 years of service is feasible. Cost per flying hour of a modern B52: $70,000 [1] 1. https://www.airforcemag.com/article/re-engining-the-b-52/ https://www.airforcemag.com/article/re-engining-the-b-52/
- imtringued 6y ago
  It's very easy to upgrade a strategic bomber. All strategic bombers are prone to interception so the only way to stand out is by having a bigger and modern payload. You can see the same development with tank cannons. Bigger calibers aren't necessary. The Rheinmetall 120mm cannon can be upgraded by simply shooting modern munition.
- gsnedders 6y ago
  They also spend comparatively little time in the air. Compared with passenger aircraft where their return-on-investment strongly incentivises them being airborne as much as possible, military aircraft spend _a lot_ of time sitting around, either unused or in maintenance.
manigandham 6y ago
747 has been continually updated but the all modern airliners still have the same fundamental design. > "Also nobody should be sorry that elites have to sit on long overseas flights just like we do." Anyone can fly as long as they can pay for the ticket. First-class passengers subsidize economy seats for most flights, and new tech generally starts with wealthier early-adopters before it becomes accessible for everyone. By the way, if you live in the West then you're an "elite" compared to billions. Let's drop the classism.
hermitdev 6y ago
> I visited one in a museum and it was claustrophobic. I also got to do a walk through in the Air and Space Museum over a decade ago. It's deinitely a tight space amd the seats were tiny. I'm not terribly tall, about 6 feet, and I had to hunch over to avoid hitting my head.
mulmen 6y ago
> Also nobody should be sorry that elites have to sit on long overseas flights just like we do. Or we could all be flying supersonic because of the economies of scale.
hodgesrm 6y ago
> The 747 is a 1960s design, for Pete's sake. How long were we planning on keeping it around? Sometimes old designs are pretty good. The C-130 Hercules rolled out in 1956. It's still in service in the US and other air forces. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_C-130_Hercules https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_C-130_Hercules

mantap 6y ago

I won't weep too many tears for the 747 but the A380 is seriously pleasant to fly on. It will be sad if it doesn't come back post COVID-19.

ptmcc 6y ago
It didn't make economic sense for most airlines pre-COVID, and I doubt that'll change post-COVID. It was already in rapid decline.
- FabHK 6y ago
  But it was a great plane to fly on for pax.

fsckboy 6y ago

the 787 all-composite is very cool; it's just sad that it's too expensive to retool the rest of the product offerings. And it's cool that Boeing figured out 20 yrs ago that point-to-point would kill hub-and-spoke (not least because it's a great way to fly) and very sad that Airbus wasted so much money and people's careers on an ego driven white elephant that Boeing already told them wasn't going to work, instead of using that money to push the real envelope.

vladvasiliu 6y ago

The A380 is as good as retired. Production was scheduled to stop in 2021 since 2019 [0]. It seems to have been advanced by the coronavirus crisis [1]. Air France has stopped flying the A380 [2]. [0] Airbus announces stopping production of A380 in 2021: https://www.capital.fr/entreprises-marches/airbus-annonce-la-fin-de-la-production-de-la380-fin-des-livraisons-en-2021-1327539 https://www.capital.fr/entreprises-marches/airbus-annonce-la... [1] Coronavirus gives the final blow to the A380 https://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-eco/le-coronavirus-donne-le-coup-de-grace-a-l-a380-20200429 https://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-eco/le-coronavirus-donne-le-co... [2] Air France flies the A380 for the last time https://www.lefigaro.fr/societes/air-france-fait-voler-l-a380-pour-la-derniere-fois-20200625 https://www.lefigaro.fr/societes/air-france-fait-voler-l-a38...

kzrdude 6y ago
Stopped flying it? That sounds dire. Smaller planes, like the smaller airbuses, serve for 25-30 years, right, so why wouldn't the A380 serve them for longer?
- gsnedders 6y ago
  The economics were already marginal. You basically _have_ to fill the aircraft to justify its significantly higher operating costs over large twinjets today (and the fact that no airline has many means you lose many economies of scale). In addition, many of Air France's were some of the earliest airframes constructed, some of them non-standard compared with later aircraft. With COVID-19 and an expecting reduction in travel lasting a number of years, all airlines are downsizing. An aircraft that's already marginal makes a lot of sense to drop, even it means letting it go while young. They're effectively getting replaced by the A350-900s Air France has on order which are _vastly_ more fuel efficient per passenger.
  - jabl 6y ago
    Any idea why the A380 is so fuel inefficient? It's a relatively recent design with modern engines etc., no? (I've flown once on an A350. Very nice plane)

jrockway 6y ago

I don't think it's that disappointing. The airlines moved from larger flights to more frequent flights between more destinations. These days, you can miss a transcontinental flight and only be an hour late to your destination, because there are 15 flights a day instead of 2. You are also likely to be able to fly non-stop between any two city pairs. (I looked some up at random, and you can do things like Montreal - Casablanca nonstop instead of Montreal-Toronto-LHR-Casablanca; probably cutting your door-to-door time in half.) Losing Concorde was unfortunate, but there were just too many limitations to make it viable. Flying supersonic means you produce a shockwave that breaks stuff on the ground, limiting it to flying supersonic over oceans. Flying supersonic means that you have to produce kinetic energy that goes up like the square of your speed, meaning you need more fuel, and you need more fuel to carry the fuel. It barely worked for JFK-LHR (relatively short distance, mostly over the ocean), and there just weren't other routes where it was viable. With no viable routes, it wasn't going to sell in any volume, and there is some critical amount of volume you need to justify the program (some fixed human overhead for every airframe project; if you sell 10000 of them, that rounds to zero, if you sell only 20 of them, that rounds to a lot). Might be pessimistic but I don't think we'll ever see a supersonic airliner again. The sonic boom kills them. Those people that want to drill tunnels through the earth to get better-than-great-circle distances might be the future. But I'll probably be dead before anyone gets funding to do that.

noizejoy 6y ago
> Those people that want to drill tunnels through the earth to get better-than-great-circle distances might be the future. Might also get a little warm and you'd fight a lot of pressure, since you'd need to dig down about 1/3rd of the distance you'd want to save (assuming my elementary geometry memories aren't failing me). So to save 600km distance, you'd have to go down to a max depth of almost 200km. For context, the deepest bore hole drilled to date seems to be about 12km deep. [0] So technology would have to improve a lot before global warming or the next meteor get us all. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kola_Superdeep_Borehole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kola_Superdeep_Borehole
jabl 6y ago
If this SABRE hybrid rocket engine thing takes off (pun intended), then maybe we could have some kind of "semi-ballistic" long range flights?