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

191–200 of 223 posts

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

#191

Post by zerocrates »

flingo wrote: post #158
lmm wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 (n…

Is there a single word for "it's more profitable to do this thing, rather than the other thing, or nothing"? I think that's what this counts as. I think this is in the same category of decision as retailers selling old stock at a loss, because that's better than not selling it. A large portion of the modern economy is run by spreadsheets, and crunching the numbers on what the "most-profitable" thing to do often leads…

In this air freight context, the relevant short concept would be the "shutdown rule" of economics: you keep operating in the short term as long as your revenue covers your variable costs. If it doesn't, it's cheaper to just not operate at all, but if you're beating the variable costs you're at least minimizing your losses even if you're not covering your fixed costs.

In the long run, you can't ignore the fixed costs forever and you eventually just leave the market altogether.

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

#192

Post by mjg59 »

HanShotFirst wrote: post #176
mjg59 wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I recently (a few years ago) flew transatlantic on a 3-5-3 747 (Delta).

In recent history, Delta only flew 747s between 2009 and 2018 (they were originally Northwest planes, acquired in the merger). I can't find any evidence that any of them ever had 3-5-3 seating.

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

#193

Post by bayesianbot »

echelon wrote: post #170
coin wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More engines means more to fail

You're correct. I should have been specific. Between the two, are two engine aircraft or four engine aircraft responsible for more deaths? Normalized for number of aircraft/flights over a fixed time period.

I'd guess you'll have such a small sample of engine related fatal crashes, that comparing the two numbers (per total persons flown) would be completely random result

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

#194

Post by WalterBright »

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…

My dad took me to Frankfurt Airport observation deck to see the first 747 land.

Years later, when I worked for Boeing, the older fellows told me that the 747 lost money for years. But when it turned profitable, boy was it profitable. Whenever Boeing sold one, it was huge dump truck of cash infused into the company.

Sad to see it end.

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

#195

Post by rconti »

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…

Agreed. My first and only business class overseas flight was top deck on a United 747. An absolute joy. With a handful of passengers and your own crew, with the pilots up front, it feels like you are on a private jet. The cabin wasn't as nice as some of the newer business class offerings, but the experience made it so worthwhile.

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

#196

Post by sjagoe »

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?

At a guess, more demand for direct flights served by A350 and 787 and falling demand for hub-and-spoke flights served by A380.

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

#197

Post by jabl »

jacquesm wrote: post #181
ekianjo wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Before the 747, only the richest folks could really cross the globe at will. The 747 changed everyday notions of distance and ushered in the age of travel that we get to enjoy today. Not just that though. Regulation also changed significantly in the meantime and made it possible for smaller aircrafts to fly intercontinental which brought prices down as well.

Engine quality and reliability improved, which allowed the regulation change.

And the thrust went up too. The original 747 had engines producing about 200-250 kN each, whereas the engines on the 777 produce around 440 kN each.

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

#198

Post by jabl »

jrockway wrote: post #130
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 - Ca…

If this SABRE hybrid rocket engine thing takes off (pun intended), then maybe we could have some kind of "semi-ballistic" long range flights?

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

#199

Post by Gravityloss »

pirocks wrote: post #172
pininja wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“[For a 737-400] takeoff, climb, and landing burns approximately one third of the total fuel” [0]. A 747 is a different aircraft, but I’m comfortable assuming this is a directionally correct estimate. Regardless, fuel burn is certainly a factor to consider when looking at savings and there are interesting studies on it (See “Fuel burn implications“ for an idea of factors [1]) [0] http://large.stanford.edu/courses/201…

737's are usually used as short haul planes, while a 747 is typically long haul. You would expect a long haul plane to spend more time in cruise relative to climb, so the fuel consumption numbers could be quite different.

Well, it's a tradeoff.

If you make one really long flight, you need more fuel - and then you need more fuel to carry that fuel (though less). Basically you need an exponential amount of fuel for more range, not linear. (It works just the same as the rocket equation, though less drastic.)

But landing and takeoff take kind of a fixed amount of fuel.

So, for short trips, the fixed amount is more - so better to fly directly.

But for really long trips, you're on the right side, the steep end of the exponential curve. Adding more range there takes a lot more fuel. So then it's smarter to put less fuel at start and make a refueling stop instead.

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

#200

Post by jabl »

gsnedders wrote: post #103
kzrdude wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 economics were already marginal. You basically _have_ to fill the aircraft to justify its significantly higher operating costs over large twinjets today (and the fact that no airline has many means you lose many economies of scale). In addition, many of Air France's were some of the earliest airframes constructed, some of them non-standard compared with later aircraft. With COVID-19 and an expecting reduction in…

Any idea why the A380 is so fuel inefficient? It's a relatively recent design with modern engines etc., no?

(I've flown once on an A350. Very nice plane)

Post reply on HN