Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Boeing quietly pulls plug on the 747, closing era of jumbo jets

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 223 posts

Re: Boeing quietly pulls plug on the 747, closing era of jumbo jets

#111

Post by fsckboy »

mlyle wrote: post #104
fsckboy wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

fwiw, the article itself with the bad headline says the freighter will continue, which is why I called it a bad headline.

I can see why you read this sentence > While Boeing’s hump-nosed freighters will live on, the fast-disappearing A380 risks going down as an epic dud. that way, but it's referring to A380 flights largely stopping but that the 747 freighter variants will be flying for a long time. But, the article (and other sources) are clear that production of 747-- including 747-8F-- is stopping. Explicitly explained later: > Boeing…

we are in so deep now :) just have one thing to add: Boeing has not pulled the plug on anything, it's the customers not ordering. 747 is open for business and sadly, based on your deep dive, Boeing seems not expect more orders of any variant.

oh, one more thing: in terms of passenger versions, there are two Air Force One's on order, aren't there? yeah yeah, I know, it's not AF1 if the president's not on it.

Re: Boeing quietly pulls plug on the 747, closing era of jumbo jets

#112

Post by SkyMarshal »

jandrese wrote: post #45
manigandham wrote: post #37

> The 747 notched its last order as a passenger jet in 2017 -- for Air Force One. What's the next version going to be then?

Probably a 777. It's smaller, but not by a lot. Plus the current AF1 should be in the air for many years still.

Yes, 777 (X or BJ) is also capable of the longest max range of any US jet, so I imagine that would factor into an AF1 decision too. Longest range or loiter time without refueling.

Re: Boeing quietly pulls plug on the 747, closing era of jumbo jets

#113

Post by gsnedders »

bobthepanda wrote: post #49
innocenat wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The 737, 777 and 787 combined have eliminated the need for the 747, 757 and 767. There are huge demand for A321LR precisely because there is a need for 757-like capacity and range. Granted, when 757 was discontinued the demand wasn't there yet.

It was also why Boeing was, until the MAX debacle and COVID, also scrambling for the NMA, and why the MAX was so large.

The original "long" 737 variant was 30.5m; the 737 MAX 10 is 43.8m long. Many of the problems with the 737 airframe are rooted in this growth, along with it being originally designed as a regional jet with needed compromises (being low to ease airstairs, which caused problems with engines since the first re-engining with the Classic series).

Note that Boeing was trying to sell airlines on a clean-sheet aircraft when Airbus launched the A320neo, and _quickly_ started gaining customers, including those that had been loyal to Boeing for decades. Boeing needed something to counter the A320neo, hence the MAX had to happen—and soon.

Re: Boeing quietly pulls plug on the 747, closing era of jumbo jets

#114

Post by gsnedders »

fsckboy wrote: post #111
mlyle wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can see why you read this sentence > While Boeing’s hump-nosed freighters will live on, the fast-disappearing A380 risks going down as an epic dud. that way, but it's referring to A380 flights largely stopping but that the 747 freighter variants will be flying for a long time. But, the article (and other sources) are clear that production of 747-- including 747-8F-- is stopping. Explicitly explained later: > Boeing…

we are in so deep now :) just have one thing to add: Boeing has not pulled the plug on anything, it's the customers not ordering. 747 is open for business and sadly, based on your deep dive, Boeing seems not expect more orders of any variant. oh, one more thing: in terms of passenger versions, there are two Air Force One's on order, aren't there? yeah yeah, I know, it's not AF1 if the president's not on it.

> oh, one more thing: in terms of passenger versions, there are two Air Force One's on order, aren't there? yeah yeah, I know, it's not AF1 if the president's not on it.

Yes. They bought undelivered 747-8Is that had already been built (the airline had gone bankrupt prior to delivery) and they are currently modifying the aircraft for presidential service.

Re: Boeing quietly pulls plug on the 747, closing era of jumbo jets

#115

Post by AnimalMuppet »

MintelIE wrote: post #87

I would have thought they'd pull the plug on these new jets they had to fake safety compliance for and keep the older, working models that people will actually fly on. I can't imagine anybody flying on a 737 Max even if the Boeing execs over at the FAA claim it's safe again.

This article is about the 747, not the 737. So far as I know, the 747 never had to fake safety compliance in any way.

Re: Boeing quietly pulls plug on the 747, closing era of jumbo jets

#116

Post by supernova87a »

Traster wrote: post #13

As I understand it, 4 engine planes are less economical and are now unnecessary due to the reliability of 2 engine planes. I could see the last 747s serving as great monuments purchased by Billionaires to add to their collections. No 737 Max is going to give you a spiral staircase. I can't help but see this as a problem though, as we converge on a single type of aircraft it moves more and more to winner take all for…

Two main things as I understand it:

1) The variability of traffic leads to jumbos being underutilized, wasting fuel and capital tied up in such oversized planes, when it's better to have a 787 in use full time more consistently

2) Airlines got tired of having to maintain 4 engines when they could just have 2...

Re: Boeing quietly pulls plug on the 747, closing era of jumbo jets

#117

Post by yorwba »

ravoori wrote: post #92
WJW wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IIRC it really depends on the cargo. A very cool example I came across was iPhones being fairly heavy relative to their volume while roses were very light relative to their volume. The solution of the air freight company was to fill their aircraft 50/50 with roses and iPhones so that they were both at their weight limit and at their volume limit.

Ingenious on the part of freight company, but roses being transported halfway around the world is an indicator of what's wrong with modern commerce

iPhones being transported halfway around the world isn't? In both cases the difference in labor cost is large enough to make the flight profitable.

Re: Boeing quietly pulls plug on the 747, closing era of jumbo jets

#118

Post by fsckboy »

rlpb wrote: post #110
fsckboy wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[I already answered you once but I thought of another way to think about it that is substantially different than my other comment so thought I'd write another one.] The freight economics issue between the 747F and the A380F is related to the complex soup of fixed costs and variable costs that go into the carrier's choice of platform; in addition to the fuel, the carrier has to amortize the purchase price, and the A38…

> Because the 747 is so old, most of the development costs are long since amortized. This gives Boeing more pricing flexibility if the two companies are competing head to head. The A380 otoh needed to earn back lot of money to get back to breakeven for Airbus, so Airbus did not have the same pricing flexibility as Boeing. How does that work, given that development costs are a sunk cost[1]? The accountants shouldn't c…

Generally, the sunk cost argument is used to mean "just because you've put a bunch of money in does not mean that your "progress" is worth what you paid for it, and is therefore not a justification to keep putting more money in; you've already lost what is gone so that's off the table."

However, if a company borrowed the money it "sunk", it still has to pay that money back from future sales; if it was raised through equity, continued losses will continue to drag the share price down. Sunk cost is not a free lunch argument.

This is where the "competing for production slots" with passenger variants comes in. The program could only be run cash flow positive at a higher rate of production than the orders were justifying, and that is on the back of the higher priced passenger variants. As it was, Airbus needed to amortize overhead costs over two production lines, the overhead was too much for one production line; worth it in the short term only if you expected sales to pick up in the future. (and you can't shut down a production line and then fire it back up without a lot of extra overhead, so for example, they can't just keep the A380 idea around in case demand develops)

For each piece of the program, there are separate sunk costs. The sunk cost of design does not justify sinking further funds into building an assembly line, if the expected production is not going to pay for itself, even though the design you now paid for is so to speak "free!" And the freighter variant required new sunk costs before it would be ready to sell (the 747-8 itself cost $5B more on top of the already existing 747 platform)

And anything Airbus chose to do, Boeing could disrupt by dropping it's prices/profits; there is a lot of "chess" entailed in marketing these large scale projects. Would have potentially been a different story had there not been competition.

Re: Boeing quietly pulls plug on the 747, closing era of jumbo jets

#119

Post by jmkd »

mlyle wrote: post #93
gsnedders wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A _large_ proportion of worldwide freight is ordinarily carried in the belly of passenger aircraft. When most airlines stopped flying, the price of air freight _quickly_ rose (as the capacity pretty much fell overnight to just the dedicated freighter aircraft). This meant it became profitable (i.e., above the marginal costs of the flights) to fly passenger aircraft purely for the belly-hold freight. They certainly ar…

Not to mention that when we're talking about freighters, e.g. 747-8F-- they are not limited to belly hold freight. (And have much less cabin weight, fly slower / use less fuel, so the weight they can carry is better than repurposed passenger aircraft).

Have seen plenty of evidence of freight being shipped in passenger cabins the last few months too. Some in and on the seats and others with seats newly stripped out.

Re: Boeing quietly pulls plug on the 747, closing era of jumbo jets

#120

Post by jahmed »

smohnot wrote: post #55

Sad day for me; for a plane geek, frequent traveler, son of immigrants, and someone who has been to the factory (incredible - visit the Everett Boeing facility if you get a chance), this is super nostalgic. The "Queen of the skies" really changed air travel, and I'm a bit sad that they won't be flying much longer. The economics, size and scale of travel were drastically different before the 747. Before the 747, only…

I'm so happy my last flight was on a 747. It's truly stunning if you haven't flown on one before.

I also had the pleasure of visiting the C17 plant in Long Beach. Blew. My. Mind.

Post reply on HN