Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Boeing 747 begins its final descent

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 378 posts

Re: The Boeing 747 begins its final descent

#201

Post by s1artibartfast »

ggm wrote: post #166
nradov wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We might still reach a point in a few decades where capacity constraints at major airports make larger quadjets economically viable again. That was the thesis behind the Airbus A380, and it didn't work. But is it possible that they weren't so much wrong as just too early?

"Didn't work" meaning did not result in 5,000 orders. The aircraft in use by the middle east and asian airlines (and Qantas) are doing fine. They are also less economic than the modern 2 engine widebodies, despite being more economic than a 747 on the same route, with higher comfort levels and less intrusive engine noise. They just didn't turn out to fit the emerging economics of flight. They "work" fine.

I think they mean work out for airbus. Financially was a huge program disaster. It sold half the number of airframes needed for cost break even in nominal value, before accounting for the cost of capital. This also doesnt account for billions in illegal EU government subsidies.

Re: The Boeing 747 begins its final descent

#202

Post by pwarner »

GMoromisato wrote: post #67

Anyone interested should read Joe Sutter's book, 747. Sutter was the lead engineer for the development of the 747 and he has some awesome stories. One interesting story is that Juan Trippe (CEO of PanAm) wanted Boeing to create a double-decker airplane. He was enamored with the idea of "ocean liners" cruising the sky. But Sutter (and other engineers) knew that it would be impossible to create what he wanted, so inste…

I sat under and in front of the pilots once. Also highly recommended.

Re: The Boeing 747 begins its final descent

#203

Post by cindyllm »

PaulHoule wrote: post #136
wat10000 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve flown on a wide variety of planes, and never found any difference in comfort from the plane itself. It’s all about the seats.

The 737 is noticeably louder than other planes on the ground and in the passenger cabin and especially for the pilot. 787/A350 and the A220 have a higher cabin pressure and better air quality that helps you feel better. It could be that most of my wide body experience was going over the Atlantic on 747s in the 1990s and a few times circa 2012 flying 767s on the JFK-LAX route which felt luxurious. As I see it, I’d rat…

[dead]

Re: The Boeing 747 begins its final descent

#204

Post by WalterBright »

anonymars wrote: post #161
WalterBright wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it was just about four-engine planes becoming too expensive to run Four engines are also less safe than twin engines. I know it sounds counter-intuitive, but Boeing did the math and made the case.

Can you link to the source?

My time working on Flight Controls at Boeing.

Re: The Boeing 747 begins its final descent

#205

Post by WalterBright »

GMoromisato wrote: post #176
DangitBobby wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A bit strange that you started you comment with the exact same sentence as the previous commenter.

They're just quoting it but typo'ed the > I was confused at first too.

Yup. I've done that before.

Re: The Boeing 747 begins its final descent

#206

Post by Onavo »

massysett wrote: post #154

This article is but one example of a tiresome genre: the paean to the supposed glory days of aviation. Passengers dressed up, dined on caviar, and smoked cigarettes. Stewardesses were sexy, and liquor flowed in the expansive 747 lounge. These pieces then bemoan today’s bus of the sky, with the unwashed masses donning sweatpants and dragging screaming toddlers who leave orange Goldfish crumbs in the seat cracks. I am…

They were limited by the tech of the time too. A modern clean sheet redesign of a 747/A380 class airplane would look very different given modern composites and improvements in engine bypass and compression ratio.

Re: The Boeing 747 begins its final descent

#207

Post by shipman05 »

sandworm101 wrote: post #190
SR2Z wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the context that's missing from this discussion is just how long the 747 was in service. When it was new, pilots didn't directly control the engines - a flight engineer did. There were no moving maps and navigation was done with radio beacons and pilotage (of course, this required lots of fiddling with knobs and a notepad). There were no flight envelope protections, and we knew next to nothing about the dange…

And the context of the different regulatory environment. Those fancy cabins in the 60s/70s were because prices/routes were controlled by government. Unable to compete on price, airlines competed on luxury. Which, at the time, largely boiled down to who which had the shortest miniskirts in the TV ads. Today's flying cattlecar hell is the result of the opposite, a dramatic market-driven race to the bottom of quality...…

Or we could just build trains (in the US, other wealthy places seem to already get this)

Re: The Boeing 747 begins its final descent

#208

Post by dolphenstein »

sandworm101 wrote: post #190
SR2Z wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the context that's missing from this discussion is just how long the 747 was in service. When it was new, pilots didn't directly control the engines - a flight engineer did. There were no moving maps and navigation was done with radio beacons and pilotage (of course, this required lots of fiddling with knobs and a notepad). There were no flight envelope protections, and we knew next to nothing about the dange…

And the context of the different regulatory environment. Those fancy cabins in the 60s/70s were because prices/routes were controlled by government. Unable to compete on price, airlines competed on luxury. Which, at the time, largely boiled down to who which had the shortest miniskirts in the TV ads. Today's flying cattlecar hell is the result of the opposite, a dramatic market-driven race to the bottom of quality...…

I bet if you pay the equivalent 60s/70s dollars to fly today you'll get much better service than back then! Modern first class cabins are a class above what was available back then.

Re: The Boeing 747 begins its final descent

#209

Post by dlcarrier »

massysett wrote: post #154

This article is but one example of a tiresome genre: the paean to the supposed glory days of aviation. Passengers dressed up, dined on caviar, and smoked cigarettes. Stewardesses were sexy, and liquor flowed in the expansive 747 lounge. These pieces then bemoan today’s bus of the sky, with the unwashed masses donning sweatpants and dragging screaming toddlers who leave orange Goldfish crumbs in the seat cracks. I am…

Here's one pilot's view of the glamorous days of the past: https://youtu.be/JjKSAp2ssY8?t=433

Poor safety was a big problem, too.

Re: The Boeing 747 begins its final descent

#210

Post by WalterBright »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #175
WalterBright wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the first transcontinental railroad was proposed and being built, it was beset with controversy and skepticism. But when it opened, it exceeded the wildest expectations of its most optimistic boosters. It transformed the country overnight. A similar thing happened with the first transatlantic cable.

The Union Pacific Railroad (the eastern half of the transcontinental railroad) also caused the financial crisis of 1873 (due to construction costs and various corruption and bribery around financing them). It then went bankrupt in 1893. So, yes, it transformed the country. That didn't necessarily benefit the stockholders and bondholders.

1. It finished the railroad in 1869. 1873 was four years later. 1893 was 24 years later - a generation.

2. Check out "Nothing Like It in the World" by Ambrose.

Post reply on HN