Slashdot Mirror
The Flying Giant Is 40 Years Old
Ponca City, We love you writes "Four decades ago, Boeing's prototype 747 took to the skies over Washington State for a 75-minute flight that helped bring cheap airline travel to millions of people and would remain the world's largest commercial aircraft for 37 years until the advent of the double-decker Airbus A380. What made the 747 unique was that it was the first 'wide body' aircraft with more than one aisle — a big step towards reducing the sense of traveling in a narrow tube, and inducing a sense more equivalent to flying in a large room with high ceilings. But back in the 1960s, convincing people that the 747 would fly was a tough call. Joe Sutter, the director of engineering on the project, even spent an hour with Charles Lindbergh, going over all the data to prove that the jumbo would not flip over or become unstable at high speeds. Boeing has sold more than 1,400 jumbos in the past four decades, worth, at today's prices, more than $350 billion and although we might complain of traveling in 'cattle class' we have the 747 to thank for being able to do so at affordable prices."
...Boeing will fire 10,000 workers!
I don't say this to troll. I work in the aerospace industry and am watching bright, talented friends and coworkers get laid off left and right.
> And then hate how they treat you like a farm animal on flights.
Nothing is stopping you from flying first class.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Modern aircraft compare extremely well to their 1960s counterparts - the best example is that of 'ETOPS' (Extended Twin Engine Operational Performance Standard), or 'LROPS' as it is known today (Long Range Operational Performance Standard).
Try finding a 1960s aircraft that is rated to fly for 208 minutes, or nearly 3 and a half hours, on one single engine. Thats how far the technology has come, its extremely reliable.
747-400 still has slightly longer range than 777. The longest flights are still on 747s - Newark NJ -> Singapore (nonstop). Chicago - Hong Kong (nonstop), etc etc. I prefer the 777 because they have more modern amenities in coach like seatback entertainment systems instead of a single giant screen for the whole cabin like its 1981 or something. *SOME* airlines (NOT UNITED) have actually upgraded their economy class on the widebodies in the past 20 years.
So Airlines weren't competing on price prior to deregulation?
No. Airfares were set by the FAA, so they competed on the quality of service during the flight. If it's the same price and equivalent schedule, do you go for the "free" salmon meal or the peanuts?
Prior to deregulation, airlines weren't trying to maximize profits?
Since they couldn't, by law, change the fare, they tried to maximize profits by having the most passengers on the most profitable routes by offer the best of the least expensive services.
Feel free to pontificate on other stuff you don't understand though.
From AC: "So Airlines weren't competing on price prior to deregulation? Prior to deregulation, airlines weren't trying to maximize profits?"
Before deregulation they were regulated much like public utilities with built in profits. They had assigned routes they could fly and other airlines had to get regulatory approval before they could fly the same routes. But the prices were high enough that many people just didn't fly. I was born in 1952 but never took a commercial airline flight until 1982 and that was paid for by my employer. I've still only flown 4 times for something other than business.
"The problem with supersonic passenger planes was that they could not fly at those speed over land"
Concorde will quite happily fly at supersonic speed over land, absent NIMBYs pushing governments to prohibit such flights. It really doesn't care what's ten miles below it.
With hindsight getting the civilian market was the bigger prize.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Joe Sutter has written a awesome book on the 747. It really goes into how the plane was developed. It was kind of the black sheep at Boeing - everyone was focusing on the SST - the big brother of the Concorde.
They spent a lot of time looking at the behavior of the plane well before manufacturing. These engineers have passed from the scene, and given how much both Boeing and Airbus have screwed the pooch with the A380 and 787, the engineers after them have not yet lived up to their mentors.
Wrong, Concorde was one of British Airways most profitable aircraft after the airline underwent privitisation in the mid 1980s - the Government was simply operating the aircraft badly before that.
Concorde being unprofitable is a major myth of the aircraft, and one that still dogs it to this day.
The 747 was not the first double deck plane, there were several multiple deck aircraft before it - the Boeing 377 being an excellent example.
And you really are doing many many engineers a great disservice...
It was meant to be either.. they designed it with the option to configure it as a cargo or passenger plane. That's why the cockpit is the way it is - to get it above the cargo bay, and the nose can be modified to swing open to load cargo.
Both of these planes are capable of much greater speeds, the limiting factor..... the sound barrier...and to limit air frame fatigue.
That's certainly true. Citations are not certified for mach speeds but test pilots routinely take them right beyond the barrier, as an experimental flight, immediately before being certified. Remember, each plane is tested before delivery by a test pilot. This is true of all planes. In an accident it is pretty easy to exceed their Vmax speed, which is near the barrier, and they want to know for sure the plane will hold together before they place it in the hands of less experienced pilots.
Certification speed should not be confused with what an airframe is capable of.
AA, UA, NWA, USAir, Delta, Southwest - they all suck as far as economy class treatment goes. Shitty seats, dirty cabins, nickel-and-diming you for a bag of chips or box of shitty food. All of the major carriers are pretty bad. The smaller carriers do a slightly better job.
Do you think they'll survive long if they do this several times each day?
Bzzzt. Prices feel faster during regulation than after deregulation.
What about lower fares? Didn't deregulation pay for itself with lower fares? Apparently not. Morgan Stanley shows that airline pricing has been falling for 40 years. Eyeballing the chart, the fall in prices was steeper between 1962 and 1978 than after deregulation.
Terrorist, bomb, al Qaeda, nuclear, yellowcake, kill, assassinate. Carnivore is dead... long live Echelon.
Having worked next to an airport (so close the watch tower called the Fire Station during the company BBQ). The sound really wasn't that bad. Usually the building would shake a little Like when a heavy constructions trucks parked next to your house, but only for about 3 seconds then it was back to normal. It is not like it was ear hurting, it was barely noticeable.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
747-400 still has slightly longer range than 777. The longest flights are still on 747s - Newark NJ -> Singapore (nonstop). Chicago - Hong Kong (nonstop), etc etc.
Incorrect. The longest regular flights today are Singapore Airlines' Newark to Singapore and Los Angeles to Singapore, both of them with A340-500s. The 747 isn't used for any ultra long-haul flights - only A340s and 777s.
Now, as far as amenities is concerned - that is entirely up to airlines. For instance, the aforementioned longest flights by Singapore Airlines only have business class seats.
The China Airlines 747 was severely damaged and nearly had to be scrapped. Not due to supersonic flight loads, but due to damage from the high-G pullout required to recover from the out of control power dive towards the ocean.
Among other things the landing gear locks pulled out of their fuselage mounts and the gear extended partly during the dive pullout, damaging the gear and gear doors.
The pullout encountered 5.1 and 4.8 G peaks, which exceed the normal structural limits, and the aircraft's wings were permanently bent upwards 2-3 inches.
The horizontal tailfins also were partially shredded - see pictures and more incident data at:
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19850219-0
Also NTSB report available at:
http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/ComAndRep/ChinaAir/AAR8603.html
But it did fail--initially. Boeing bet the farm on the 747 expecting ridership to increase. We entered a recession. It did not increase. Boeing went from 135,000 workers to 35,000 workers in the space of a few months. At the time Boeing was a one-horse show just like Seattle and the firm nearly went bankrupt. People left their homes to the banks and moved out of Seattle, Renton, Kent, and Auburn. Someone put up a billboard that said, "Will the last one to leave please turn out the lights." It took years for the local economy to recover. And the 747 caused it.
Today Seattle and Boeing are both very much more diversified. Anf yeah, Boeing is laying off a few thousand workers--but it's not 100,000 workers.
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
It was said to have no commercial future, but in the twilight of its flying life Concorde has emerged as one of the biggest money-spinners for British Airways, earning the airline as much as £50m in the past six months. In Concordeâ(TM)s final week alone BA is thought to have made about £6m in profit as customers vied for the cachet of being on board one of the last scheduled flights to travel through the sound barrier. . .
http://www.cronaca.com/archives/001605.html
In March 1984 the government ended its involvement with Concorde when British Airways assumed full responsibility for Concorde support costs. British Airways Board paid GBP16.5 million to acquire the government's stock of spare parts and was released from the profit share scheme under which the government collected 80 per cent of Concorde operating surpluses.
http://www.britishairways.com/concorde/faq.html
How much profit did Concorde make for British Airways? On average Concorde made and operating profit of £30-50 Million a year for British Airways in the boom years where many passengers were travelling first class. British Airways reportedly received £1.75 Billion in revenue for Concorde services against an operating cost of around £1 Billion. Air France made a much smaller profit.
http://www.concordesst.com/retire/faq_r.html
If you want actual financial figures, BA detailed Concorde as a seperate operating centre in its financial reports up until Concorde was retired.
But they *do*. It's called first class! I know people who *do* pamper themselves when flying to their vacations, and it's a wonderful way to fly - but it's not for everyone, or indeed even a large portion of the traveling public.
I fly long distance (London->Beijing, London->Dallas, about ten hours for either trip) quite frequently, and usually go British Airways. The BA long-haul planes are usually 777s, and carry four classes:
Food and alcohol is free in all classes, and in fact these days, even in economy the food is pretty good. Snacks, drinks etc can be had for the asking; they encourage you to go to the galley rather than ring for a steward. Personal TVs all round, laptop power everywhere but economy. What's best, the staff have always been uniformly friendly and polite to me --- although it helps that I've flown enough to know how everything works and so know how to behave so I don't make their lives harder.
BTW, if you're ever travelling long haul, go visit seatguru.com. It'll tell you everything you ever need to know about where the best seats are. (On these 777s, you want the front row premium economy seats. Extra legroom and storage and you can get out without climbing over your neighbour! Pity that these days they send me out economy class...)
I live in Reading, UK, which was under the Concorde flight path, and when it went over it'd make the windows rattle.
I'm not complaining, mind. I rather miss it now it's gone: twice a day, there'd be this throaty, world-filling roar --- not loud, but somehow intense --- and you'd look up and there would be that beautiful shape going overhead.
I was deeply disappointed about the weaselly way the British ones were decommissioned; they drained the hydraulic fluid from the systems, more or less wrecking them. The French were a bit more respectful, but even so there are only a few models remaining in decent enough condition to even tour. A sad end, for what's generally known as the largest jet fighter in the world...
A Premium Economy option has actually started to emerge.
I'm not sure your definition of "cruise" in your post, but the idea that a 747 can't stay aloft on 2 engines isn't relatively true. You should be able to maintain FL150 or so, depending upong conditions and fuel load. And if things get hairy, dump fuel until you get below MLW.
Now, if by "cruise", you meant maintain 490 KTAS at FL350, you are correct. Not gonna happen on 2 engines. But you're talking double engine failures, I'd _much_ rather be on a 747 (4-2 = 2) than a 777 (2-2 = 0). 747's with double engine failures have returned safely on multiple occasions.
> So, a double engine failure on a 747 isn't
> really much better than a double engine failure
> on a 777.
I agree with the sentiment of your post. More parts/engines, more chances or failure. And high ETOPS rated twins are more economical to operate.
No it isn't, not remotely.
The airframe is superficially similar but is probably made of advanced composites. It's also aerodynamically more efficient.
The engines are now high bypass turbofans with increased efficiency and reliability and reduced noise.
The avionics are unrecognisable compared with 40 years ago. Flight controls are electronic. The cockpit is a few CRTs instead of hundreds of mechanical dials. Navigation systems include GPS. The plane can now be flown by two people instead of three. Actually, technically, the aeroplane can be flown by the onboard computers. It doesn't need humans at all.
In the cabin, the seats are.... well, the seats are the same - possibly worse, but even in cattle class, every seat has its own entertainment centre with on demand video and computer games.
So modern airliners are all identical metal tubes with wings stuck on and engines stuck to the wings in turn, but when you think about it, that description fits the Douglas DC3 from the 1930's. Appearances are only skin deep.
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
For the kind of routes the 747 flies, there IS that option. For example, British Airways has a "World Traveller Plus" - more legroom, mains plug for your laptop etc., and it costs about 1.5 times the normal economy fare.
I'm flying on BA to Houston in March. Being a cheapskate, I took the normal economy class (I fit the seats, and even in the cheap seats, you get free booze and free food). The return fare from London to Houston is £300 *all inclusive* travelling midweek (about US $450) which is tremendously good value for money, especially since BA's service (at least on that route) is first class.
I did check the other fares. I will not begrudge the First Class passengers getting on the plane first, or getting their own checkin desk and lounge. The first class round trip fare for the same journey is ... £9000.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
You've got the and the effects of a number of events all confused.
The 747 didn't fail - thought it's entry into service was rocky due to teething troubles with the engines.
The huge jobs cuts occurred in 1971/72 - a year after the 747 entered service and a year before the recession really took hold in 72/73. The primary cause being massive cutbacks in government spending on aerospace - most notably for Boeing, the 2707 SST.
Those four cities have something in common - first they were the heart of Boeing's advanced development, government and space business, and second they weren't where the 747 was being built. Thirty miles north in Everett, where the 747 was being assembled, nobody was turning out the lights.
Hi, I am the airplainer explainer.
FL150 - flight level 15.0 - 15,000 feet altitude
MLW - max landing weight
KTAS - knots true air speed
FL350 - 35,000 feet altitude
Have a nice day.