Boeing Quietly Pulls Plug on the 747, Closing Era of Jumbo Jets (bloomberg.com) 118
Boeing hasn't told employees, but the company is pulling the plug on its hulking 747 jumbo jet, ending a half-century run for the twin-aisle pioneer. From a report: The last 747-8 will roll out of a Seattle-area factory in about two years, a decision that hasn't been reported but can be teased out from subtle wording changes in financial statements, people familiar with the matter said. It's a moment that aviation enthusiasts long have dreaded, signaling the end of the double-decker, four-engine leviathans that shrank the world. Airbus SE is already preparing to build the last A380 jumbo, after the final convoy of fuselage segments rumbled to its Toulouse, France, plant last month. Yet for all their popularity with travelers, the final version of the 747 and Europe's superjumbo never caught on commercially as airlines turned to twin-engine aircraft for long-range flights. While Boeing's hump-nosed freighters will live on, the fast-disappearing A380 risks going down as an epic dud.
I liked the 747-400 upper deck (Score:2)
I liked flying in the 747-400 upper deck. Comfortable and quiet up there.
Re: (Score:2)
I've also flown economy in an A380 and it was surprisingly comfy.
Re: (Score:1)
I used to fly first class on 747s all of the time and it was super cushy.
The only better experience I had on an airline was on the Concorde, back when that was still flying. Nothing quite like getting across the Atlantic in 3 hours.
Re: (Score:3)
The one time I've been on an A380 in economy, I hated it... I was flying FRA->PEK, so a rather long haul. I'm a window seat person, and my usual method for getting through long flights is to sit down, have a scotch, pass out against the side of the aircraft and wake up at the other end. Unfortunately you can't do that on the lower deck of the A380, as the sidewall is still curving outwards, so at shoulder height it's a good 6" away from the side of the seat. No way to fill that gap and sleep comfortably.
Re: (Score:1)
The one time I've been on an A380 in economy, I hated it... I was flying FRA->PEK, so a rather long haul. I'm a window seat person, and my usual method for getting through long flights is to sit down, have a scotch, pass out against the side of the aircraft and wake up at the other end. Unfortunately you can't do that on the lower deck of the A380, as the sidewall is still curving outwards, so at shoulder height it's a good 6" away from the side of the seat. No way to fill that gap and sleep comfortably.
I envy you rich dudes and, at the same time, I'm thankful I never made it (66 now). To me, any flying is luxury. I seldom do fly, but I love it. Just the view is enough to get me excited.
But, then again, I see some of you suffer when you've had too much. Jet lag from the Orient must be terrible.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, sitting there, you're literally a step above the hoi polloi. I once flew business class with an airline (might have been Virgin Atlantic) that had an actual bar up there.
I've also flown economy in an A380 and it was surprisingly comfy.
Virgin business class was awesome. Comfy seats that turn into comfy beds, free pajamas, free spa with showers in the arrival airport. Loved it
Re: (Score:2)
That's why they have to go. The airline execs are extending their lives by capturing the distilled essence of the agonized groans of millions of passengers attempting to stand up after flying economy.
Pull the plug on the 737 Max (Score:4, Insightful)
Not this one everybody trusts.
Re:Pull the plug on the 737 Max (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Not this one everybody trusts.
LOL.. And yet, test flights for the re-certification process have started as of Monday.
You do understand that this is not the first 737 design fault that killed a few plane loads before it got figured out and fixed. We are still flying those aircraft decades later. This issue is a whole lot less complex to understand and thus is a much easier fix.
History says, in about 5 years, nobody will care except the civil courts where the wrongful death suits will be settled if Boeing chooses to not settle out of c
Re: (Score:2)
When Airbus automation and wonky sensors were killing planeloads of passengers well before Boeing, no one batted an eye.
Flying is dangerous business.. It is unforgiving of even the slightest fault in design or execution. Airbus has had their share of design faults that killed folks right along with Boeing. I suspect that despite all our efforts to prevent future problems that kill people, we will eventually fail again, design faults will slip through that end up killing folks. The question is not "if" it's "when"?
Re: (Score:2)
Because Airbus automation didn't kill anyone. The pilots did.
Re: (Score:2)
Because Airbus automation didn't kill anyone. The pilots did.
And Airbus spent a lot of money and effort making sure that's what the record shows.
Re: (Score:2)
Because Airbus automation didn't kill anyone. The pilots did.
One could say the same thing about the 737 MAX accidents. What happened was 100% recoverable if you identified the problem and took the proper actions to deal with it.. Of course it's easy to sit in your living room and critique when it's not your butt in the seat attached to a misbehaving aircraft about to crash.
Automation kills a lot of people in aircraft accidents, or shall we say the improper use or malfunction of the automation does. The issue usually isn't the automation systems, but the pilots rea
Re: (Score:2)
Airbus automation took several decades to get right and during that time, most of the Airbus accidents were about the automation. AF 447 was probably the 1 good example, of which the pilots really did kill them, but that was due to AF using newbies as international officers. Oddly, AF447 had a similar issue to 737max. That is the makers decided to withold safety features and charge $ for them. Because AF447 did not have sttick feedback, then the co-pilot d
Re: (Score:2)
AF447 was nothing like the 737max crashes. Had the pilots of the AF447 done nothing at all the problem would have resolved itself. And the pilot should have known because the aircraft actually told him about the dual input, which both pilots have ignored.
It has nothing to do with linked or unlinked controls. You know how I know it? Here is an example of a 737 crashing in a similar situation with both pilots making opposite inputs despite a hardware linkage between the controls:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Which crashes were these?
I'm aware of the A320 air show crash, which was caused nearly entirely by human error (complacency by a pilot who knew better). Flight law played a small roll in this, and one could argue Boeing control law would have let the pilot save the plane. But this is very different than the 737 max situation. The pilots knew they were flying the A320 well outside its envelope, well below safe minimums. The 737 MAX pilots had no idea what the computer was doing and why.
Besides that air s
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, as for the air show, in a Boeing the pilot would have immediately stalled the plane right into the trees, probably killing everyone on board. The Airbus didn't stall, gliding on top of the trees that cushioned the fall so most of the passengers were able to survive.
Re: (Score:2)
That's really interesting. It's been a long time since I ready anything about that crash and the subsequent investigation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. The pilot tried to pull up at stall speed, the computer correctly prevented it. A stall at 30 meters of altitude is non recoverable and results in an immediate crash.
You are partially right, though, that the Airbus computers have allowed the situation to enfold in the first place because flying at stall speed and this low is far too dangerous in a non envelope protected aircraft - even a gust of a tailwind would immediately stall and crash the airplane. On the A320 it is possible, though, the fuckup
Re: (Score:2)
The 737 tend to break up in three pieces on an impact due to their flimsier fuselages. They are built to the 1960s standards, this is why they are lighter.
Re: (Score:2)
The Air France crash was basically down to poor communication in the cockpit. One pilot had the stick full back and didn't tell anyone, didn't do anything when the other pilot pushed their stick forward.
It can be argued that the aircraft should warn the crew when it is seeing conflicting inputs, but in any case proper training would have prevented that accident.
Re: (Score:2)
As a matter of fact, the aircraft did warn the crew. It has both an aural "dual input" warning and a message on the display.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is what we Germans call a dangerous half-knowledge. You have heard some things but didn't understand them and got so many technical details wrong it hurts every aviation geek.
Do yourself a favour and watch the air crash investigation season 12 episode 13. It explains the causes of the crash in layman's terms.
Re: (Score:2)
|You have the half knowledge. AF447 was due to the computer co-pilot not knowing what the inexperienced IO was doing, and feeding into the computers.
Re: (Score:2)
As a janitor?
There is no force feedback option for the A330 side stick. And WTF is a computer copilot?
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry about the extra word, computer. It was from a phone while on the go. Just drop the word computer when reading it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Have you actually read and understood it? Doesn't seem that way.
Re: (Score:2)
And yes, I have read it. So have others. That is why the major Airlines are now buying airbuses with joysticks that have feedback. That was a HUGE advantage of Boeing's tied yokes so that both sides can feel what is going on, instead of having total idiots in the cockpit.
Re: (Score:2)
I read the link, which was very interesting, thank you. I can see how the linking of the sticks would have saved the plane, and moving that way is probably a wise thing to do. But whether or not you can call that a "computer" problem is debatable, or even a problem with fly by wire is debatable.
The fact of the matter is that Bonin did not follow any of the training he was given in regards to control of the aircraft. When the pilot in command says, I have control of the airplane, Bonin should have let go o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"Epic dud" - I smell some bias ;-) (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:"Epic dud" - I smell some bias ;-) (Score:5, Insightful)
The A380 is superior in every way. But airlines were getting out of jumbo jets long before the pandemic hit. The A380 will stop production before the 747, and because 747s are easier to convert to cargo craft; they will fly on long after the last A380 has landed.
"epic dud" is probably unfair; but hub-and-spoke airline design declined decades ago. The A380 didn't fail due to any weakness, but the world had already moved on from it by the time it first flew.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are actually two 747s. There's the passenger version, and the cargo version. The converted ones and combi are passenger 747 modified to hold cargo.
The BIG difference between the two, and why the 747 will fly for a long time, is the cargo 747 has a nose door. Yes, the nose door that lets the nose swing up and opens in a cavernous emptiness that is the 747. You've probably seen it, and it's what makes the super guppy all that much more useful.
You see, the passenber combi and converted ones only have sid
Re: (Score:2)
My understanding is that when Boeing was designing the 747, that they thought that supersonic was going to be the future of passenger travel. The 747 was primarily a cargo plane, and the market for the passenger variants were really expect to be just a short-term thing.
Funny thing there were kind of right in the end with the 747 being used more and more to move cargo, but were wrong about why the 747 has fallen out of favor for passenger use, with most passenger flights now on smaller, slower twin-engined
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, hub and spoke flights are not nice, and it is mostly because the airports have become so terrible. There used to be simple, quick and well planned connections, and now even 45 minutes may not be enough to make it through another security check and run through half the airport.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The A380 is superior in every way.
Not even. It's a lousy cargo ship, especially compared to the 747, which is convertable. It's a maintenance nightmare. It was created strictly for European politics (dick waving)
Oh, and it's butt ugly! "dud" would be a compliment.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends. Line maintenance is much simpler compared to the 747 because it is a modern aircraft that can recognise a fault and print out instructions on how to fix it.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh be fair.. Everything you say is true... Except that it's ugly.. I think it's quite a nice looking aircraft, which looks like nearly every other aircraft of it's vintage that rolled out of Airbus's hangers. Personally, I find it better looking than the A330...
The A380 was both a political and a bad technical decision. It cost way too much to design and build and Airbus will have to write off a pile of R&D costs that it won't ever make back. You are correct in that the market for such an aircraft wa
Re: (Score:1)
I think it's quite a nice looking aircraft
It's all stumpy looking, so it will fit into the gate. Proportions are way off.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:"Epic dud" - I smell some bias ;-) (Score:4, Informative)
Lying again, lynnwood? The A380 is the quietest widebody out there. 777 is the noisiest, by the way.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually judging from what you have written you never have been on a A380. And most likely neither on a 787. Because their cabin altitude is almost the same but you seem to quote a Boeing ad. You see, all plastic aircraft have better environment than the old aluminium aircraft because CFRP fuselage can withstand higher pressure differentials.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They don't allow mobile phones in flight mode on China Eastern - phones have to be switched off for the entire flight. I can't speak for other Chinese airlines though. (Well, unless you include Cathay Pacific, since Hong Kong is China. Cathay Pacific allows phones to be used in flight mode.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: "Epic dud" - I smell some bias ;-) (Score:2)
No, I'm not a Lynwood sick puppet. Just haven't flown in China since 2015, which was before the rules changed. I didn't realise the restriction had been lifted since then.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The market couldn't support two planes it just wasn't that big. Airbus canceled their super jumbo last year. Boeing warned Airbus before they produced their super jumbo that the market couldn't support two planes. The end result, both are gone because of airbus.
Re: (Score:2)
It was 4 engines vs 2 engines.
Re: (Score:2)
Airbus had absolutely everything to do with the cancellation of the 747. The plane was very low volume (it was only used in long distance flights where higher passenger counts offset the additional fuel costs) When a second competitor entered thee market it wiped out profitability.
Boeing not only publicly warned AirBus of this through numerous press conferences, WTO hearings and every other channel, but also held 1 on 1 meetings with AirBus executives and showed them the financials and yearly volumes. Airbu
A380 did not kill the 747. (Score:2)
A380 did not kill the 747.
The 21st century 747 production was mostly cargo versions. The very latest variant of 747 is 747-8 which received only 150 orders, out of which only one third was passenger version. It was basically on the way out anyways because one can get only so much out of a frame designed in 1960s. The 747 would be out of production like 15 years ago without a cargo version.
The A380 is out of production because only a few airlines decided that they need an aircraft seating +500 passengers (o
Re: (Score:2)
It was a great plane, but it was a complete economic failure for Airbus. It gave Emirates a great decade and a bit, but in economic terms it is a failure across their fleet (made worse by COVID).
It was a nicer plane to fly than the 747-8i, but the upper deck on the 747 was always a great experience.
In economic terms, not sure which plane did worse. Boeing stretched production some with the -8f, but I think both Boeing and Airbus wish they hadn’t gone down the path.
Re: (Score:2)
Boeing did the 747-8 specifically so Airbus wouldn't earn money with the A380. Airbus got their revenge with the A350-1000 that will make sure Boeing loses money on the 777x.
Re: (Score:2)
Boeing did the 747-8 specifically so Airbus wouldn't earn money with the A380.
If this was the goal, then Boeing didn't succeed because the passenger version of 747-8 was one third of overall 747-8 orders, so about 50 airplanes in a whole decade. Can't compare to A380 production which did hit something like 250 aircraft in less than 15 years of production.
The 747-8 was introduced simply, why not make more money? Most of the fixed costs in designed and manufacturing were already sunk. They just took the engi
Re: (Score:2)
best sleep I ever had was on-board a Quantas A380 in first
It's an acronym. There's no u. Queensland and Northern Territory Aerial Services or QANTAS.
I have to concur though. The A380 is a beautifully comfortable and quiet plane.
Re: (Score:1)
The plane may have been comfortable, but it was designed for a hub-and-spoke model that was already going out of date when the airplane was designed.
Airbus themselves have said that they couldn't recoup the development cost, which was approximately $25 billion.
They have had to restructure their starter deals with European governments which had totaled $9 billion. If you are a taxpayer in Germany, France, or the UK, the project has already cost you.
The WTO ruled against Airbus for receiving illegal subsidies
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The proposed four engined A380 stretch with 800 passenger cabin (that's twice as the largest 777) could match and beat the per-seat costs of flying even the largest B777. The reason the A380 failed is not the costs of maintenance (which clearly is low per passenger seat) but the discovery that there isn't a whole lot of demand for aircraft that flies 500-800 passengers at once.
Re: (Score:1)
Whether someone cares about Boeing or not is a non-sequitor.
* The thing takes forever to board
* It doesn't fit at many airports or requires significant construction
* Only dicks brag about having money to burn
Re: (Score:1)
A380 risks being a dud? (Score:1, Flamebait)
The A380 has always been a dud. Just getting the thing off the ground required government subsidies so large that they resulted in WTO reports being launched. It received massive government subsidies so large that the WTO ruled against them in court. In fact the WTO rules against Airbus for breaking subsidies rules six times in a row. To give an idea of the epic scale of the subsidies, the award over the matter was more than $18 billion. This was more twice the size of the next largest award in WTO history.
Re:A380 risks being a dud? (Score:4, Insightful)
You do realise that there are also WTO rulings against all kinds of Boeing subsidies?
Re: (Score:2)
No government subsidies required
Boeing is getting most of its subsidies through its military branch.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
747 was beautiful, A380 looks just fat. (Score:2)
May be if demand for gasoline and diesel drop off significantly from the surface transport sector may be jet fuel prices will fall. Even if it does, the two engine 777 and its clones will still have lower fuel consumption, so it might not help 747.
The first plane ride mom ever had was on a 747 back in 1994. She was stunned! A staircase ... inside the plane! Homes with staircases were rare in rural South India and she
Sounds like a great company to work for (Score:3)
Boeing hasn't told employees, but the company is pulling the plug on its hulking 747 jumbo jet,
Sounds like a great company to work for.
Re: (Score:3)
Considering that the 747 suppliers have stopped manufacturing parts last year, I don't think this was news for anyone working at Boeing.
Re: (Score:2)
Boeing hasn't told employees, but the company is pulling the plug on its hulking 747 jumbo jet,
Hopefully they don't read Slashdot.
Why are the Jumbo-jets disappearing? (Score:3)
There is a great Mentour Pilot presentation on the overall state of the industry:
His main points:
1. 4-engine design is expensive to operate
2. spoke-hub system is going bye-bye
Why are the Jumbo-jets disappearing?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
plain ol fuel economy alone kills it, 24% less than the twin engine jets to push the same amount of people.
Re: (Score:2)
> His main points:
>
> 1. 4-engine design is expensive to operate
> 2. spoke-hub system is going bye-bye
He doesn't go into detail about *WHY* the "spoke-hub system is going bye-bye". See https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] Small Planes Over Big Oceans (ETOPS Explained)
* Based on previous experience with piston-engined planes before 1950, it was considered very risky for a *TWIN*-ENGINE* plane to fly more than 60 minutes from a "diversion airport", i.e. emergency landing site. 3 or 4 engine planes ne
Re: (Score:2)
False. 4-engine jet with 500-800 seat capacity can easily match and beat the per-seat costs of modern 2-engined design like B777 or B787. The real problem is that the airlines didn't buy into the idea of flying 500-800 passengers at once. Clearly, there aren't a whole lot of destinations to support this.
All 747s or just the passenger versions? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.heavyliftpfi.com/b... [heavyliftpfi.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The Antonov 124 (let's leave out the even larger 225 as a one-off) may be larger than the 747 freighters, but handling of freight leaves much to be desired, which kills it e.g. for turnaround times.
We have a local freight-only airline (actually, one of the bigger european all-cargo lines), with an all-747 fleet - they have even been launching customer for the last few 747 cargo versions. They did test the Antonov 124 for a while, but in the end only occasionally rented one for the rare freights when a 747 c
Re: (Score:2)
380 pounds (Score:2)
the fast-disappearing A380 risks going down as an epic dud.
That's what Boing said at the time -- smaller jets to more places was the growth area, and they were mystified at its existence as it had no business case.
Of course, it had a political case: the biggest jet in the world! "And look'" puffed the local politician, "I brought a piece of its manufacturing to you!" What a triumph for this government-consortium partnership.
The surprisingly slow death of B747 (Score:2)
Around year 2000 when Airbus announced A380 double decker jumbo jet, it was clear that B747 production was ending. What's surprising is that thanks to belated orders, the Boeing 747 would still be in production in 2020, and perhaps beyond.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's the super-jumbo market itself that's dead, now.
That is false. The airlines will HAPPILY buy super junbos. In fact, they would buy an aircraft 2x the 380. BUT, they need low maintenance costs. The 380 and 747 have 4 engines and are expensive to own.
Re: (Score:2)
There is nothing wrong with having four engines, if the aircraft is large enough. What matters is not the overall cost of maintenance but the cost of flying the aircraft per seat per hour. The A380 and B747 are significantly larger than two engine aircraft. While, it was clear for a long time, that the B747 designed in the mid-1960s was on its last legs in the 21st century, the A380 was efficient and large enough to offer very competitive costs of operation per passenger seat. When the A380 was introduced,
Re: (Score:2)
" The 747 continued to be updated and new versions launched well past the A380 being announced. Did you think Boeing was just going to cede the super-jumbo market? It's the super-jumbo market itself that's dead, now."
Actually, around years 2000-2001 it wasn't clear at all that B747 production in any form could make it even to year 2010. If you recall, that was the year when Airbus pitched the idea of A380, which at time gathered a lot of interest from potential launch customers. In response, Boeing proposed
Had a good run (Score:1)
737 (Score:2)
Now, sadly the 737 is also heading into the same direction. 50 year long life span is just to long for aircraft designed in the late 70s.
Good, now create the X-48 (Score:2)
Australia is screwed (Score:2)