back to article Boeing just about gives up on the 747

Boeing will reduce the number of 747s it makes to just one every two months, citing a collapse in demand for the iconic aircraft. The company previously announced plans to slow production from 1.3 jets a month to just one a month, with the new and lower production rate expected to kick in from March. Now the company says it …

Page:

  1. chivo243 Silver badge
    Unhappy

    So long old friend

    I'll be sorry to see them go, my first flight was on a 747 in 1970. O'Hare to LAX. That was in the days where the child flyer was spoiled. I got gold pilots wings, playing cards the whole shebang. I miss those days of flying

    1. Chris Miller

      Re: So long old friend

      They'll be around for decades - I still see 30 year old 747 Classics overflying the UK on cargo flights between US and Europe (Kalitta Air).

      1. The First Dave

        Re: So long old friend

        But part of the reason that old 747's are still flying is because they are still building new ones, and hence spare parts tend to be easy to find and cheap to buy...

        1. Alan Brown Silver badge

          Re: So long old friend

          Spares are easy to find because there are so many old ones in the boneyards.

          It's worth going to Tucson simply to see the military and civilian stuff laid out over the desert there.

      2. Stuart 22

        Re: So long old friend

        Taking bets on which will be last really iconic plane to end commercial passenger service:

        Boeing 747 (entered service 1970, production ended ?)

        Douglas DC-3 (entered service 1936, production ended 1945)

        Re: Airforce 1 - under heavy gunfire I'd rather be in a DC-3. They have a track record. I rather like the story of the Chinese DC-3 who had a wing blown off by a bomb. They stitched on an old DC-2 wing and returned it to service as a DC-2 and a half (with a bit of inbuilt yaw reportedly).

        1. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

          Re: So long old friend

          Taking bets on which will be last really iconic plane to end commercial passenger service

          Speaking of iconic planes, I see from the 'pedia that the last DC-10 passenger service ended in 2014. It was as old as the 747, and recognizable for that tail-mounted engine, made famous by the UA232 crash.

        2. Vic

          Re: So long old friend

          Douglas DC-3 (entered service 1936, production ended 1945)

          It's actually rather difficult to get a flight in a DC-3 in the UK at present...

          They were prohibited from passenger flights because of the way the emergency exit works. So whilst we have at least one flying, I can't buy a seat on it...

          AFAICT, the cheapest way to get a flight in one is to go to the Netherlands, If anyone can prove me wrong, I'd be very grateful :-)

          Vic.

      3. LesC
        Black Helicopters

        Re: So long old friend

        The very same Kalitta legacy B747 fleet do a good job of blowing stuff away- taxis, light aircraft, school buses, personal tornado shelters..... they've cropped up on Mythbusters.

        There's one does DHL that goes from Liege to Cincinatti most nights that goes over me here in NE England. BTW any pilots in here can apply to jumpseat travel on these old birds.

        Helicopter as there's no 747 icon.

      4. Alan Brown Silver badge

        Re: So long old friend

        What's grounding the older birds is noise regulations for the most part. There aren't many places left a Classic can fly in or out of anymore - even the cargo hubs are getting pinched on noise grounds.

    2. uncle sjohie

      Re: So long old friend

      I remember those times too. I flew, as 6 year old boy from Amsterdam to Miami with a KLM 747 in 1980, I also got pilot wings, crayons, a lot of attention from the flight attendants, and a nice tour of the cockpit. Nowadays, airplanes ar just flying busses/touringcars, all the romance is gone.

      1. Yag

        Re: "airplanes ar just flying busses/touringcars"

        In the best cases... At worse, it's a flying cattle-car.

        (Well, to be fair, you get what you pay for)

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: So long old friend

      >That was in the days where the child flyer was spoiled.

      Yep those were the days, I've fond memories of sitting in the captains seat on a BAC1-11 as a 10 year old on my first foreign holiday; fortunately he wasn't called Captain Oveur :)

      A memory that's given me a love of aircraft ever since which sadly kids of today will can't experience.

      My mum was once allowed to sit in the cockpit jump seat on landing in a Balkan Bulgarian Airlines TU-154.

      Thanks a lot Bin laden (sarcasm), well haha you're dead now.

      1. Vinyl-Junkie

        "That was in the days where the child flyer was spoiled"

        It wasn't just children. I didn't fly in anything until I was in my 20s, despite being aviation-mad (and then I started with a DC-3 that even then was more than twice as old as I was). My first jet trip was on a Continental DC-10 in 1985 from Gatwick to Koln. I was travelling with an equally plane mad friend and we asked the cabin crew if there was any chance of being allowed up front. They asked the captain and the reply came back "Sure". We were both allowed up at the same time; and were able to spend about half an hour up there.

        However, the absolute best result was in 1996. I was flying back from Venice with my parents and had donned an aviation themed t-shirt for the flight (not consciously as I recall). We were flying back on an Alitalia MD82 and again I asked if it was possible to visit the cockpit in flight. I was told that once we had reached cruising altitude and the seatbelt signs were turned off I was to summon the stewardess and I would be escorted to the cockpit. I did this and on arrival in the cockpit (not even a door to go through, just a curtain - those were the days!) I was warmly greeted by the two crew . We had a bit of a chat and, having spotted the t-shirt, they quizzed me about my interest in aviation and, having decided that I was neither completely ignorant nor completely obsessive they told me I was welcome to stay unless anyone else asked to come forward. For the rest of the flight I was allowed to sit in the jump seat, with a fantastic view as we crossed the Alps, headed across France and Belgium before turning to cross the English coast, all on a gloriously sunny January day. I was only asked to go back to my seat as we were on finals at Gatwick, some three hours later.

        The only flight I remember with more fondness than that one is my first solo in a C152, some three years later!

        1. John Robson Silver badge

          Re: "That was in the days where the child flyer was spoiled"

          " I was only asked to go back to my seat as we were on finals at Gatwick, some three hours later."

          When I was a lad I visited the cockpit (with my brother) on a short hop from Nice to LHR.

          Whilst we were in there the pilots had a call over the radio - and said "You - pull that seat out, you, sit there. Both of you strap in".

          They put the seatbelt lights on and called for a stewardess (as they were) and sent a message back to our parents that they had been given an short landing window and we'd be stuck there until we'd landed.

          That was fun!

        2. RegGuy1 Silver badge

          Re: "That was in the days where the child flyer was spoiled"

          Ah a 152. Slightly bigger than a 150, but still a tight fit with you and the instructor.

          The performance was much better when he got out and you had the aircraft to yourself! :-)

      2. Quortney Fortensplibe
        Facepalm

        Re: So long old friend

        "...Thanks a lot Bin laden (sarcasm)..."

        Thanks a lot USA and your "hornets nest and poking stick" approach to the Middle East, for giving such mediaeval voodoo peddlers the incentive to fuck things up for the rest of us, in the first place.

        1. Mpeler
          Holmes

          Re: So long old friend

          Nice try. Does the name BALFOUR mean anything to you?

          You lot have been carving up the middle east for far longer than we've even cared. With the same dismal results. Perhaps it's not the "carvers" but rather the "carvees" that are at fault, eh?

          Than again, ravaging hordes have been marching through europe for millenia. Too bad they didn't install fiber-to-the-door on the way.....

          1. KeithR

            Re: So long old friend

            "You lot have been carving up the middle east for far longer than we've even cared. "

            And nobody cared because it didn't result in the apocalyptic worldwide shitstorm that US foreign policy has since caused.

            Not.

            The.

            Same.

            At.

            All...

            1. Mpeler
              FAIL

              Re: So long old friend

              Reminds me of a headline I once saw in a British rag newspaper:

              "Dense fog in Channel, rest of world cut off"...

              Folks like you love to blame, yet do the same.

              1. Chris Parsons

                Re: So long old friend

                I very much doubt you did, unless you're very old indeed. It was originally quoted by Claud Cockburn in his book 'I Claud', published in 1967, but referring to an incident in the 30s.

          2. CliveS
            Unhappy

            Re: So long old friend

            Personally I think you need to point the finger at Colonel Sir Tatton Benvenuto Mark Sykes, 6th Baronet and François Marie Denis Georges-Picot for the fruits of their authorship. And while you're at it you could give Edward Grey, 1st Viscount Grey of Fallodon and Pierre Paul Cambon a slap for putting their signatures to a dodgy agreement which has left lasting consequences for the region.

    4. Known Hero

      Re: So long old friend

      Not a 747 but on a national flight up to Liverpool when I was a small lad, I was allowed to actually turn the plane whilst sitting with the captain!!! It was amazing :D

      I feel rather sad, my boys will never be able to experience that for themselves :(

      1. jeffdyer

        Re: So long old friend

        Why not? Flight "experiences" trips are not expensive. I went up on a Cesna or something for my 40th and flew it around for a while. Nothing to be "sad" about.

        1. Nameless Faceless Computer User

          Re: So long old friend

          Because you can't fly 13 hours non-stop to Asia in a Cessna [Skyhawk]

      2. IsJustabloke
        Thumb Up

        Re: So long old friend

        @Known Hero

        My first flight was on a Dan Air, I think it may have been a trident.. Like you I went to the cockpit and was shown how , then allowed to bank the aircraft using the auto pilot controls, I over did it a bit nad teh aircraft banked quite hard.... I got a few "paddington hard stares" on the way back to my seat :D

        even today, some 40 odd years later I still want to go in the cockpit of every aircraft I get on :(

      3. JeffyPoooh
        Pint

        Re: So long old friend

        KH related "...when I was a small lad, I was allowed to actually turn the plane..."

        Do that on an Airbus and you might kill everybody on board.

        No arguments, no debates, it's a fact. Ref. Aeroflot Flight 593

        1. Francis Boyle Silver badge

          Aeroflot Flight 593

          Thanks I was trying to find that to cite as a reply to all those blaming Bin Laden for not been allowed in the cockpit anyone. Short summary for those who don't know the story: Captain allows son and daughter to sit in the pilots' seats. Son somehow manages to disable the autopilot. Everybody* dies. One of the more truly horrific aviation stories.

          *73 people according to the supposedly unreliable Wikipedia.

          1. LesC
            Unhappy

            Re: Aeroflot Flight 593

            A few years ago when doing some server work for Canuck outfit IT Telecom out of Halifax. I'd upgraded my Zoom Air flight GLA --> YHZ from cattle class to premium cattle class and ended up right by the cockpit - there were a few pilots from TACA and Buffalo jumpseating up the front, once we were out over the Atlantic the pilot stuck his head out of the cockpit door and invited them in - this was a 757 but it still goes on post 11/9. Im no aeroplane nerd but got a very good look in it's like the Enterprise in there -

            On our 5th anniversary in 1997 we got into the cockpit of some United Embraer from LAX to San Diego as the pilots heard our accents and invited us in. Once SWMBO had finished the lecture trail we ended up in Minneapolis and after a crapload of voluntary work in flood defence we eventually wound up at Brize Norton having bummed a ride on a US National Guard Herc. Made CBS too as we'd both collected suntans in California and we were sandbagging in St. Paul Minneapolis :)

            Changed days now :(

            LC

          2. Alan Johnson

            Re: Aeroflot Flight 593

            Why did anyone down vote this?

            The pilot let his son and daughter have a go at the controls. The son managed to disengage the autopilot and put the plane in what became a steep turn which the pilots could not recover quickly enough and the crash that followed killed everyone. Ironically the investigation decided if the pilots had simply let go of the controls the plane would have successfully recovered itself!

            I like the idea of letting childen and others in the cockpit but everything has a risk. Children or anyone else who is not qualified handling the controls is perhaps not justifiable in terms of the small probability but huge severity of possible consequences.

            1. JeffyPoooh
              Pint

              Re: Aeroflot Flight 593

              "Why did anyone down vote this?"

              Because there are some employees and/or fanbois of Airbus on these forums.

              Airbus designers made some clearly-dangerous decisions in the conceptual design phase of their cockpit and user interfaces. There have been endless examples.

              Far too many Airbus aircraft were in absolutely perfect condition in the last millisecond before impact. That's clearly indicative and is simply undeniable.

              Other brands of aircraft crash too, but they're typically broken before hitting the ground. There's certainly a clear and indicative distinction.

          3. JeffyPoooh
            Pint

            Re: Aeroflot Flight 593

            Yep. And it was (not surprisingly) an Airbus. A310-300 to be specific (according to the 'net).

            Because having one of several autopilot channels silently turn off is the poster child of good UI design; not. Ideally Airbus will start designing Self-Driving Cars, because then people would stop arguing about this point.

            1. Alan Brown Silver badge

              Re: Aeroflot Flight 593

              "Because having one of several autopilot channels silently turn off is the poster child of good UI design; not."

              Airbus don't have the monopoly on this. There have been a number of crashes caused over the years by pilots not hearing the "disengage" bong as they accidentally knocked the controls (on all makes)

    5. Michael Habel

      Re: So long old friend

      Yeah it was always fun getting a close up look at the Cockpit. I guess they don't do that anymore though. But, yes those were the days!

      1. Valerion

        Re: So long old friend

        Yeah it was always fun getting a close up look at the Cockpit. I guess they don't do that anymore though. But, yes those were the days!

        Capt. Oveur: Have you ever been in a plane cockpit before?

        Joey: No, sir.

        Capt. Oveur: Ever seen a grown man naked?

        1. el_oscuro

          Re: So long old friend

          But that was in a 707 with turboprops!

          1. This post has been deleted by its author

      2. paulf

        Re: So long old friend

        It is still possible, but not when in flight due to the whole locked cockpit door 9/11 stuff. I got a close up look at the cockpit of a 747 (Virgin Atlantic) before a LHR to SFO flight in 2012. A polite request to the cabin crew led to permission from the captain. Me and TOH had a good look around and a chat with the crew on the flight deck but that was while we were still at the terminal gate. Once they started getting ready to depart we had to clear off. The main thing I remember of that flight was sitting at the bar, at the foot of the stairs, drinking my way through the bottle of port they had. Every time one of the cabin crew went past they topped up my glass - hic!

    6. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

      Re: So long old friend

      I think my first 747 flight was in 1986, on a British Caledonian Boston-to-London trip. On the return flight a few weeks later, we got bumped from Business to First Class seats on the upper deck. I was a callow youth, and climbing that spiral staircase was an experience I'll never forget. There was a real sense of the glory days of commercial passenger flight to it.

      I've made more than a few trips to the UK since, on United in 777s, and to be honest it's not terrible, even in coach, as long as you're not too large for the admittedly cramped seating. (On my most recent trip I actually had both the window and aisle seat. Can't remember the last time before that when I hadn't been on a full aircraft for a long-haul flight.) But it's a far cry from how things used to be.

    7. a_yank_lurker

      Re: So long old friend

      The 747 was a great plane for its era and a brilliant design for its day. But like all great planes newer technology has made it obsolescent. I fondly remember many a transoceanic flight in that bird.

      You will be missed with the other great planes of long ago.

  2. Voland's right hand Silver badge

    Interesting

    747s writing on the wall was posted when FAA started approving 3+ hour ratings for 2 engine planes. I am surprised it is still around and has not been replaced by 777 on all routes.

    In fact, I suspect Boeing did some pricing shenanigans here, because A340 was displaced by A330 the moment FAA started approving 3+ h ratings for 2 engine aircraft.

    1. KeithR

      Re: Interesting

      "747s writing on the wall was posted when FAA started approving 3+ hour ratings for 2 engine planes"

      Naaah. The fact is that the A380 is just a much better plane, and it's selling like hot cakes at the expense of the Jumbo.

      1. Morten Bjoernsvik

        Re: Interesting

        "Naaah. The fact is that the A380 is just a much better plane, and it's selling like hot cakes at the expense of the Jumbo."

        Ehh. Not exactly. A380 is a larger but much more expensive plane. Only 2 where ordered in 2015. Airbus will never reach profitability on that model. The future belongs to the two engines models.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Interesting

      > 747s writing on the wall was posted when FAA started approving 3+ hour ratings for 2 engine planes.

      Could you please explain what on Earth are "3+ hour ratings for 2 engine planes"? I am a pilot and I have no idea what you're talking about.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Interesting

        "I am a pilot and I have no idea what you're talking about."

        Go read about ETOPS and come back if you still have questions?

        ETOPS certification is about certifying planes for use on routes where they might be a long way from the nearest diversion airport.

        Here's a starter for readers who don't want the full thing:

        "In 1988, the FAA amended the ETOPS regulation to allow the extension to a 180-minute diversion period subject to stringent technical and operational qualifications. This made 95% of the Earth's surface available to ETOPS flights[citation needed]. The first such flight was conducted in 1989. This set of regulations was subsequently adopted by the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA), ICAO and other regulatory bodies.

        In this manner the Boeing 737, 757 and 767 series and the Airbus A300-600, A310, A320 and A330 series were approved for ETOPS operations. The success of ETOPS aircraft like 767 and 777 made the intercontinental trijets obsolete for passenger use, and ultimately the four-engined Airbus A340. This led Boeing to end the MD-11 program a few years after Boeing's merger with McDonnell Douglas, as well as to scale down the production of its own Boeing 747.

        The cornerstone of the ETOPS approach is the statistics showing that the turbine assembly of a modern jet engine is an inherently reliable component. Engine ancillaries, by contrast, have a lower reliability rating. Therefore an ETOPS-certified engine may be built with duplicate sets of certain ancillaries in order to receive the required reliability rating.

        The North Atlantic airways are the most heavily used oceanic routes in the world. Most North Atlantic airways are covered by ETOPS 120-minute rules, removing the necessity of using 180-minute rules. However, some of the North Atlantic diversion airports are subject to adverse weather conditions making them unavailable for use. As the 180-minute rule is the upper limit, the JAA and FAA have given 15% extension to the 120-minute rules to deal with such contingencies, giving the ETOPS-138 (i.e. 138 minutes), thereby allowing ETOPS flights with such airports closed."

        From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS

        Hth.

        1. el_oscuro
          Pint

          Re: Interesting

          As a passenger, I really like the idea of more than 2 engines over the ocean. You see, if an engine shits the bed over the pond and your aircraft is only 2 engines, then you are in a precarious situation. It at least 2 hours to get to Iceland, and by running on one engine you have to compensate for thrust reducing efficiency even more. And of course you are running without backups. Should the 2nd engine fail, game over man,

          And it is not like engine failures are rare. Several years ago, an engine failed on a flight my dad was on out of Paris. It wasn't a big deal because it failed while still close to Paris, and it was a 747. The same thing happens in one of these fancy new jets with only 2 engines halfway over the pond and everyone on board would be shitting some bricks.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Interesting

            > You see, if an engine shits the bed over the pond and your aircraft is only 2 engines, then you are in a precarious situation

            It is a calculated risk¹. To put it simply, the probability of a modern engine on a modern airliner shitting itself is much lower than it was the case a few decades ago. On top of that, one is not allowed to stray more than a certain distance² from a suitable landing airfield at any point during the flight, unless strict conditions are met related to aircraft capabilities, maintenance procedures, and demonstrated reliability (by keeping track of failures on individual aircraft and your fleet as a whole). Those conditions are assessed prior to each flight on which this exemption may be granted. If the conditions are not met either a different (longer) route that keeps you closer to suitable airfields is taken, or the flight is cancelled³. This is the ETOPS (extended operations) thing being talked about above.

            Besides, at the end of the day it is the wings that make an aircraft fly. While not exactly a minor problem, losing all engines in flight is an entirely survivable proposition: Gimli glider, the splash-down in New York, and a dual engine failure (due to bird ingestion) by a Ryanair on final at Fiumiccino come to mind. On the other hand, ceasing to fly even with all engines turning is how days are ruined, e.g., AF447.

            ¹ One of a very large number thereof in engineering.

            ² Which distance (60 mins flight time with one engine inop) was decided upon in the days of piston engines, which are notoriously unreliable in comparison with turbofans. That's why back in the day we had magnificent machines with literally ten or more engines... only a few of which lasted an entire flight.

            ³ Although rare, it is also possible for an aircraft to lose extended operations capability while in flight. If this occurs before the extended operations part of the flight then a diversion must be made (in theory I suppose the flight could be replanned on a different route that avoids the ETOPS part, but it is unlikely that enough fuel will be carried to allow this option).

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Interesting

          > Go read about ETOPS and come back if you still have questions?

          I am familiar enough with ETOPS (never operated under, though) to not need to refer to Wackypedia. A "3+ hour rating" is a rather unconventional way to refer to them, to say the least.

      2. UncleZoot

        Re: Interesting

        ETOPS, Extended twin engine operation over water. They now are operating for 240 minutes from land.

    3. Alan Brown Silver badge

      Re: Interesting

      Big twins have taken over the pax market, but quads have both higher tonnage ratings and can go much further at MTOW than the twins (taking a 777 up to MTOW with cargo cuts the range by ~25% over a pax-only load)

      The primary reason the 747 isn't selling as freighters because nothing is selling new as freighters - even the A380F hasn't sold any units - You can buy an old 747-400 and convert it to freighter for less than half the price of a new 747-8F, so it's not hard to see why Evergreen is doing a roaring trade in doing just that.

      This might change in future but in the current climate of cheap oil and a world economy which has been fragile for the last 16-17 years, noone in their right mind is going to take a new plane when it has to fly for over a decade to make up the cost difference over a conversion.

  3. Joe Werner Silver badge
    Pint

    Jumbo Jet

    I too am sad to see that happen, I have travelled a lot to the US in recent years and the last year or three carriers have all changed over to the Airbus 380, or so it seems...

    I raise my glass to one of the most iconic planes of our time!

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like