In The Netherlands we have an iconic train which must have been inspired by the 747. https://www.ns.nl/binaries/_ht_1533730717772/content/assets/...
Even more so in this advertising livery:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EEXw14EWsAI4oAS?format=jpg
Boeing quietly pulls plug on the 747, closing era of jumbo jets
131–140 of 223 posts
Re: Boeing quietly pulls plug on the 747, closing era of jumbo jets
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
> 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.
Even if a company has borrowed the money it "sunk", it's still in its interest to maximize revenue even if that's not enough to pay the interest on that loan. The alternative would to make even less, and cause its debts to rise even further.
Maximizing revenue means charging the most the market will pay. Not participating because the market won't pay enough to "pay back on the initial investment" would not be maximizing revenue. Not participating because doing so would mean operating at a loss _excluding the sunk cost_ makes sense, but that's not what we're discussing here.
> 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!"
The cost of building or operating an assembly line was not the subject of my comment. I was only referring to your comment about Boeing's development costs being "already amortized". That part makes no difference to the economics of the situation.
Re: Boeing quietly pulls plug on the 747, closing era of jumbo jets
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Yes, since roses can be grown almost anywhere, and they are 100s of replacement for a rose.
Re: Boeing quietly pulls plug on the 747, closing era of jumbo jets
#134A friend of mine drives 747-8F freighters for United Parcel Service (UPS).
She trained for the -8F series upgrade at Anchorage. [Via @ethagknight comment](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23718445) I learned that this is Ted Stevens Airport, a refueling stop for everybody doing air freight from Shenzhen to USA. Apparently they have lots of other operations there, makes sense.
Anyway, 787-F pilots have had a very busy year.
Re: Boeing quietly pulls plug on the 747, closing era of jumbo jets
#135the 747-8F freighter will continue, so the title is misleading. The era is not over, at a maximum closing the era of jumbo passenger jets. and as points of interest, the hump on the 747 keeps the cockpit out of the way allowing freight to be loaded more easily and completely, and freighters don't mind stopping to refuel (too expensive to carry all that fuel for the whole trip) and that's what makes the 747 continue t…
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.
No. In-air refueling is very much a, "now you have two problems" type of solution. The tanker bird is itself an airplane that needs to land and take off, and refuel from the ground airport system.
Also, if you can make the tanker bird a UAV, you can do the exact same with the original cargo plane anyway.
Re: Boeing quietly pulls plug on the 747, closing era of jumbo jets
#136One 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.
You might feel that way, but that isn't correct.
Over the years, the airlines _have_ reduced seat pitch, and as you can see from the 747 illustration, added an additional seat in the middle section as well.
Re: Boeing quietly pulls plug on the 747, closing era of jumbo jets
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Yes, since roses can be grown almost anywhere, and they are 100s of replacement for a rose.
In theory bananas can be grown anywhere, but I believe biology has other things to say.
Re: Boeing quietly pulls plug on the 747, closing era of jumbo jets
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
The 737 is pretty versatile though. It's limitation is capacity and perhaps range. Range has been improved over the years allowing a lot of medium-range thin-capacity flights. The 737, 777 and 787 combined have eliminated the need for the 747, 757 and 767. The classics have mostly or entirely been retired, with the most common models being the -700 and -800. The family has enough flexibility to evolve in range withou…
> 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.
I suppose I can still see a need for a 757 aircraft. My thinking was that our economy now requires so much travel that a 787 could be mostly filled. There are so many variants of the A320/321 that I can't even keep track.
Re: Boeing quietly pulls plug on the 747, closing era of jumbo jets
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I don’t have evidence of this to show but friends in the airlines have told me stories of empty passenger planes flying just for freight, sometimes even with small items in the passenger cabin
Re: Boeing quietly pulls plug on the 747, closing era of jumbo jets
#140Earlier 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…
> This meant it became profitable (i.e., above the marginal costs of the flights) to fly passenger aircraft purely for the belly-hold freight.
That's not the usual definition of "profitable". As you say, they're turning a gross profit (if we treat aircraft leasing costs etc. as fixed, which over a short timeframe they are), but it's not enough to cover their fixed costs, so grandparent is correct that they are not (net) profitable.