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

201–210 of 223 posts

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

#201

Post by youngtaff »

raverbashing wrote: post #161
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…

They are putting cargo on the passenger area as well, either removing seats or tying them up over them.

BA have stripped the seats from a couple of 777s, so the main deck can carry cargo

Will only be lightweight cargo though

https://simpleflying.com/british-airways-boeing-777-freight/

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

#202

Post by jabl »

sgent wrote: post #169
jandrese wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Maybe... the Secret Service and Military REALLY want a 4 engine plane for AF1 -- remember other than transporting the President it serves as command and control for US armed forces. Losing an engine due to an attack is part of their planning. They may look at a military conversion if there isn't a civilian airliner available.

Hmm, does 4 engines really add to survivability? Looking at recent-ish cases like the 777(?) the Russians shot down over Ukraine or the case in Iran a few years ago, after being hit they go down pretty solidly whether they have 2 or 20 engines.

I guess the one case where 4 engines might be useful is if somebody sneaks up with an IR-guided manpad near an airport. Such a small missile might just take out an engine without breaking up the entire plane.

Then again, in a war if you're operating AF1 anywhere close where hostile missiles are a concern, you're doing something wrong.

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

#203

Post by jabl »

hodgesrm wrote: post #182
echelon wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Modern two engine aircraft are amazingly reliable, but there are rare cases where they have lost both engines. BA Flight 38 crash landed on approach to Heathrow due to ice in the fuel clogging heat exchangers for both engines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777#Accidents_and_incid...

Yes, but would more engines have helped in that case? If that problem stopped both engines, chances are the same problem would have stopped all 4 engines on a 4 engine plane as well.

So you'd need to look at cases where independent failures cause both engines on a twin engine plane to fail. I'd guess those are quite rare.

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

#204

Post by youngtaff »

raverbashing wrote: post #161
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…

They are putting cargo on the passenger area as well, either removing seats or tying them up over them.

Jet2 also have some 737 that can be converted between passenger and cargo

In normal times they'd often fly holiday makers in the morning, and freight in the afternoon - takes 45mins to change over

Here's one with the cargo door open but the seats in https://www.airliners.net/photo/Flyglobespan-Jet2/Boeing-737...

There's a video showing the change over on YT somewhere

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

#205

Post by ldng »

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.

That is why I used the verb feel.

Now, at least in short-medium range Airbus, my sore ass really believe that more than the pitch has been reduced ! ;-)

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

#206

Post by notahacker »

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).

There's no reason to believe short term constraints on supply chains are much of a factor in demand for new freighters which won't be delivered this year and whose capital costs are amortised over more than a decade.

Even if airlines predict the global transport market to remain similar for years, that makes it much more practical and affordable to convert existing passenger aircraft stock [which happens anyway, but we've got more and more modern parked or underutilised airframes right now]

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

#207

Post by notahacker »

manigandham wrote: post #34
fsckboy wrote: post #22

the 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…

Don't takeoff/landing cycles on the engines and airframe counteract the fuel savings? EDIT: Specifically pressurization cycles and metal fatigue, since that's how aircraft lifespan is measured.

In some instances they could [as could additional fuel burn from takeoff and airport landing costs] but airlines have done the maths. Flying hours also count towards mandatory overhauls and part replacement/retirement, and in the case where the airframe is due to hit its hours limit first, the extra takeoff cycles aren't going to make any difference.

Fuel burn is also usually the largest component of expenditure, and is especially likely to be when looking at elderly freighters with low capital costs and relatively inefficient engines

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

#208

Post by stirlo »

jabl wrote: post #200
gsnedders wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

Dead simple. 4 engines instead of 2. Same reason the 747 is going away

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

#209

Post by agurk »

jabl wrote: post #200
gsnedders wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

There are several reasons. A big one is having four jet engines rather than two. If you had two equivalent aircraft but one a twin jet the other a quad, the twin would have higher efficiency. With each extra engine you pay for it with more drag and reduced overall efficiency.

The engines on the A380 aren't actually that modern with the two options being 15-20 year old designs. One of the reasons it was discontinued is that no engine manufacturer was willing to make new engines for it, so they weren't able to produce a modern fuel efficient variant.

And it also makes limited use of composites in its design, so it's heavier than it would be if designed today.

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

#210

Post by robryan »

6nf wrote: post #139
jmkd wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Cathay has been doing this: https://youtu.be/PCJ5ikpIEOs

If I recall it is only profitable on shorter routes.

Certainly into and out of Australia at the moment we are seeing significant surcharges from DHL.

Post reply on HN