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

141–150 of 223 posts

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

#141

Post by samatman »

philwelch wrote: post #135
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.

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.

While I fully agree with the first paragraph, I question the second.

The risk to humans in automated flight is mainly in takeoff and landing. I can readily imagine making safe UAV tanker drones which take off and land on airstrips far from human habitation, such that the occasional mistake, while expensive, costs no human life.

What I can't imagine is the economics of this ever working out.

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

#142

Post by JAlexoid »

makerofspoons wrote: post #51
bregma wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Running an electric train on a transatlantic -- or transpacific -- trip causes an awful lot of environmental degradation, too.

I believe the alternative to phasing out air travel isn't finding another mode of transport to replace it but instead asking whether or not in a world with teleconferencing and the internet if it's worth the damage to be physically moving people around.

You can't compare teleconferencing with in-person interactions. They aren't the same.

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

#143

Post by mjg59 »

steffan wrote: post #136
ldng wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The layout in the picture seems to be 3-4-3, which pretty typical for 747s - I don't think anyone does 3-5-3.

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

#144

Post by kortilla »

jcims wrote: post #69
jedberg wrote: post #63

Such a shame. The best flight I ever took was on an A380. The thing was just so big that turbulence didn't seem to affect it. Flying on the jumbo jets was always a trip. With Boeing pulling the plug on the 747, it will be long time before anyone makes a double decker again, if ever.

I'll never forget my first flight on a 747. DEN to LAX, and for some reason the plane was almost completely empty..maybe 20 passengers. I was way back and was able to absorb the view of almost the entire airframe from the inside. As we neared the end of the takeoff roll and the pilot started to rotate, the wingtips started to raise with the stress on the wings. I've seen this before in other planes of course, but the…

Even mostly full of passengers, you’ll notice short hops like DEN-LAX have noticeably shorter takeoffs. Weight of the fuel for a 747-400 when fully fueled for something like the ass-deadening LAX-MEL and LAX-SYD routes is something like 25% of the plane.

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

#145

Post by mjg59 »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #60

A couple of years ago, I made an international flight with my children. I made sure that one leg of the journey was business class on a 747 on the upper deck. I wanted my children to have had the memory of flying in the most iconic location (upper deck) of the most iconic passenger airplane in history. If you can get a flight on the 747, I urge you if you are able to, pay the extra and get a seat on the upper deck. I…

United used to serve Melbourne by having one of the 747s from the LA/SF to Sydney services continue on to Melbourne. Last time I took it I was the only passenger upstairs on the Sydney→Melbourne leg. Coupled with the performance of a lightly loaded 747 that's only fueled for a ~400 mile flight (fastest I've ever had from takeoff to the 10,000 feet chimes), it was quite an experience (especially since being the only person there means your drink gets refilled rather quickly…)

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

#146

Post by lmm »

yorwba wrote: post #117
ravoori wrote: post #92

Earlier 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.

It makes sense for there to be only one iphone production line, in the same place as all the factories that make iphone components - shipping the components around and having multiple copies of the production line would probably be more wasteful. That's not really a concern that applies to roses.

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

#147

Post by philwelch »

samatman wrote: post #141
philwelch wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

While I fully agree with the first paragraph, I question the second. The risk to humans in automated flight is mainly in takeoff and landing. I can readily imagine making safe UAV tanker drones which take off and land on airstrips far from human habitation, such that the occasional mistake, while expensive, costs no human life. What I can't imagine is the economics of this ever working out.

The safety issue would also apply for mid-air refueling; that’s a precision maneuver that would endanger the crew of the cargo plane. Plus, if the cargo itself is expendable you’d be just as safe handling the cargo planes the same way as you suggest handling the fuel drones.

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

#149

Post by TylerE »

kzrdude wrote: post #66
vladvasiliu wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Stopped flying it? That sounds dire. Smaller planes, like the smaller airbuses, serve for 25-30 years, right, so why wouldn't the A380 serve them for longer?

The 380 has many special issues, primarily that it is too big for most airports.

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

#150

Post by peckrob »

philwelch wrote: post #135
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.

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.

More to the point, there's no need because we're already very close to hitting the theoretical maximum flight distance - the point at which you could connect any airport to any other airport - which is slightly less than 13,000 miles [0]. Call it about 12,300.

The A-350ULR has a range of a bit more than 11,000 miles [1].

Basically, probably some time in the next decade or so we will break through that barrier and be able to connect any two airports on Earth nonstop if we wanted to. Whether it is economical to do so is another question.

[0] http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?DU=mi&P=AGP-AKL

[1] https://www.flightglobal.com/a350-900ulr-range-figure-not-a-...

Post reply on HN