Boeing quietly pulls plug on the 747, closing era of jumbo jets • Hacker News Board

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

#121

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 11:20 PM UTC

nelaboras wrote: post #83

x43b wrote: post #36

>>The Covid-19 pandemic threatens to leave their manufacturers scrounging to find buyers for the last jumbos built. This is imply not true. The last 747s built are freighters. Freight demand is at an all time high due to COVID and constraints on supply chians. Even passenger vehicles are being called into freight service (which is far less efficient yet still economical).

I'd love to see some numbers on this. As far as I understand they are used for freight because it's better than to let them sit empty (and pilots and ground staff have to be paid too), but it still is not profitable.

[deleted]

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

#122

Post by perspectivezoom » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 11:25 PM UTC

gsnedders wrote: post #89

nelaboras wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd love to see some numbers on this. As far as I understand they are used for freight because it's better than to let them sit empty (and pilots and ground staff have to be paid too), but it still is not profitable.

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…

I just watched a video about this, that basically goes over all your points: "Air Cargo's Coronavirus Problem" by Wendover Productions https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2oPk20OHBE

A summary of the video:

- Passenger flight belly cargo used to be responsible for 25% of air cargo capacity, so capacity is severely reduced.

- PPE emergency logistics has caused a huge spike in demand, since PPE allocations are currently too volatile for anything except for air cargo. Air cargo prices are high.

- Government funding for airlines require pilots to remain on salary, so there's no additional marginal cost of labor.

- The biggest marginal cost of a flight, the cost of fuel, has understandably also become very cheap.

The end result is that even though it's still quite inefficient as compared to dedicated freight planes, the perfect storm of circumstances makes passenger-planes-as-cargo-planes momentarily profitable.

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

#123

Post by chrisseaton » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 11:29 PM UTC

gsnedders wrote: post #89

nelaboras wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd love to see some numbers on this. As far as I understand they are used for freight because it's better than to let them sit empty (and pilots and ground staff have to be paid too), but it still is not profitable.

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…

> A _large_ proportion of worldwide freight is ordinarily carried in the belly of passenger aircraft.

This is absolute nonsense. I don't know how you can claim this with a straight face. Almost all freight goes by sea, rail, and road, not by passenger aircraft.

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

#124

Post by ardy42 » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 11:34 PM UTC

chrisseaton wrote: post #123

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…

> A _large_ proportion of worldwide freight is ordinarily carried in the belly of passenger aircraft. This is absolute nonsense . I don't know how you can claim this with a straight face. Almost all freight goes by sea, rail, and road, not by passenger aircraft.

> This is absolute nonsense. I don't know how you can claim this with a straight face. Almost all freight goes by sea, rail, and road, not by passenger aircraft.

He almost certainly meant air freight, given the context.

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

#125

Post by redis_mlc » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 11:42 PM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #115

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.

The 747 is an old design, and I've seen reported the following issues:

1) Center fuel tank has exploded in the US (air) Middle East (ground) at least three times

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800

2) High-voltage wiring was routed through the center fuel tank, very likely related to #1 (arcing)

3) Cargo door latching problems, causing structural failure

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_811

I think the center fuel tank wiring and inerting issues are why US airlines stopped carrying passengers with that model. Cargo planes are exempt from inerting requirements:

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/aviation-internation...

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

#126

Post by ardy42 » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 11:43 PM UTC

vladvasiliu wrote: post #54

sesuximo wrote: post #23

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

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... [1] Coronavirus gives the final blow to the A380 https://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-eco/le-coronavirus-donne…

> The A380 is as good as retired.

Doesn't one of the Middle Eastern airlines (Emirates?) have good routes for it, so they can still use it heavily?

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

#127

Post by totallyabstract » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 11:52 PM UTC

ethagknight wrote: post #79

blackrock wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the long run, would it be cheaper to build cargo planes that can refuel in midair? That way you don’t overburdened the ground airport system. And eventually, the refueling airplane can become robotic, and fly fully automated also.

Fun idea to think about. FedEx (and many others) refuels at Ted Stevens Anchorage Airport, and it looks like they have 8 refueling pads. Obviously thats a primary function of Ted Stevens and the reason why it has 3 long runways. I dont know how long the refueling stopover is, but the delay cost cant be that bad compared to an efficient, ground-based refueling operation. Then there are other challenges, like a KC-46 (…

You'd need two KC-46 to fully refuel a 747-400F. KC-46 holds about 120KL of fuel, the 747 takes about 200KL.

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

#128

Post by dialamac » Fri, Jul 03, 2020, 12:00 AM UTC

chrisseaton wrote: post #123

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…

> A _large_ proportion of worldwide freight is ordinarily carried in the belly of passenger aircraft. This is absolute nonsense . I don't know how you can claim this with a straight face. Almost all freight goes by sea, rail, and road, not by passenger aircraft.

Chill dude.

In addition to this being in the context of air freight of which passenger..Not a whole lot of global freight involves rail or road only.

Not nonsense..

Passenger planes carried close to half of all air freight. And additionally while air freight only accounts for a small percentage of freight by weight, it carries a tremendous proportion by value.

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

#129

Post by ldng » Fri, Jul 03, 2020, 12:16 AM UTC

nlh wrote: post #101

One thing that stands out in TFA is the photo of the cabin mock-up: https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/ijEVXdL5LsC... What's the biggest difference? No overhead bins! It looks positively roomy in there. I wonder if the overhead bin model is really the best one -- it feels like a huge bottleneck. Reduces headspace, slows down load in and load out dramatically since it essentially requires that every pass…

Hum, expert in here will correct me if I'm wrong, but, beside the bins, over the years, version after version, I feel that airframes actually slowly shrunk.

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

#130

Post by jrockway » Fri, Jul 03, 2020, 12:17 AM UTC

sesuximo wrote: post #23

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

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.