That’s badass. A proper send off.
Easter egg in flight path of last 747 delivery flight
31–40 of 421 posts
Re: Easter egg in flight path of last 747 delivery flight
#32What a shitty website. Throws up a modal dialog that says: This site uses cookies By clicking “Accept all cookies”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. No option to decline some or all cookies. No option to keep using the website without clicking accept. I hope some European sues them and wins under GDPR.
Does the GPDR even apply here? If it does, maybe I should start blocking all of Europe’s netblocks….
Re: Easter egg in flight path of last 747 delivery flight
#33Any flight buffs know the estimated cost of doing something like that? I’m all for having fun, and I love that they spent the money to do it
Not a flight buff, but... - Jet fuel from NYC to LAX seems to cost ~$10k.[1] - You pay a pilot $50 / hour salary. (+100% more with benefits?)[2] - Double all of that for a bunch of random things I can't think of (airport fees?) My napkin math seems to indicate this couldn't possibly cost Boeing more than $10-20k? Pretty small potatoes to such a large company. [1] https://simpleflying.com/commercial-airliner-fuel-cost…
> My napkin math seems to indicate this couldn't possibly cost Boeing more than $10-20k? Pretty small potatoes to such a large company.
Yeah they were losing billions through criminal negligence and delayed deliveries of the 737 Max, so a couple of tens of thousands for some well needed good PR is nothing. This is probably the first bit of it for multiple years now, with all the delays in the 777X, assembly quality issues of 787, etc.
Re: Easter egg in flight path of last 747 delivery flight
#34What a shitty website. Throws up a modal dialog that says: This site uses cookies By clicking “Accept all cookies”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. No option to decline some or all cookies. No option to keep using the website without clicking accept. I hope some European sues them and wins under GDPR.
Y'all stop downvoting this, it's a legitimate complaint.
Re: Easter egg in flight path of last 747 delivery flight
#35So, how does this work? Do you plot this via the Auto Pilot? Like, inserting a list of waypoints?
You can literally just give the flight computer a list of lat-lons and have it fly arbitrary routes in the sky in 3D.
Re: Easter egg in flight path of last 747 delivery flight
#36So, how does this work? Do you plot this via the Auto Pilot? Like, inserting a list of waypoints?
If I was going to do it with my avionics, I'd do it with GPS user-defined-waypoints driving the auto-pilot.
Re: Easter egg in flight path of last 747 delivery flight
#37What a shitty website. Throws up a modal dialog that says: This site uses cookies By clicking “Accept all cookies”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. No option to decline some or all cookies. No option to keep using the website without clicking accept. I hope some European sues them and wins under GDPR.
Not sure what device you're on, but on desktop Firefox, I see a "Show Purposes" button and have the option to configure which cookies I want and don't.
Re: Easter egg in flight path of last 747 delivery flight
#38On a trip home a few years ago, I went ahead and booked a 747, partially intentionally. It was very nostalgic knowing that it was probably the last time I would ever fly in a 747 again. That was a good plane.
Re: Easter egg in flight path of last 747 delivery flight
#39Are jumbo jets being retired because of fuel economy? If so, is there a chance demand for them will return if there's a spike in passenger numbers? I would've thought a larger fleet of smaller planes would be less efficient because it increases operational cost and you have more overhead weight to move around.
> I would've thought a larger fleet of smaller planes would be less efficient because it increases operational cost and you have more overhead weight to move around.
You'd be wrong. Airline bosses (Willie Walsh? Almost sure it was him) have said it literally costs less to have two 787 fly one after the other than a single A380. The fuel efficiency of twin engine planes compared to 3 or 4 older engines compensates for the lower capacity.
Re: Easter egg in flight path of last 747 delivery flight
#40Are jumbo jets being retired because of fuel economy? If so, is there a chance demand for them will return if there's a spike in passenger numbers? I would've thought a larger fleet of smaller planes would be less efficient because it increases operational cost and you have more overhead weight to move around.
Jumbo jets are not being retired. That term applies to any airplane with two aisles between the seats or a "wide body". Currently produced examples from Boeing are the 767, 777 and 787. The 747 is simply not economical when compared to those newer airframes. Mot of the final run of 747s and I believe of those still in operation are used for cargo operations, this was an expected outcome even in the 1960s, although for different reasons. For airlines it is about running the plane at capacity and minimizing time on the ground. Airlines choose specialized models for the routes they run. The super jumbos are simply too big to be practical or economical.