US Airlines No Longer Operate the Boeing 747 (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: On Wednesday, Delta Airlines flight 9771 flew from Atlanta to Pinal Airpark in Arizona. It wasn't a full flight -- just 48 people on board. But it was a milestone -- and not just for the two people who got married mid-flight -- for it marked the very last flight of a Boeing 747 being operated by a U.S. airline. Delta's last scheduled passenger service with the jumbo was actually late in December, at which point it conducted a farewell tour and then some charter flights. But as of today, after 51 long years in service, if you want to ride a 747 you'll need to be traveling abroad.Ars Technica recalls the history of the Boeing 747 in its report, mentioning that although no U.S. passenger carriers still operate the big bird, several hundred remain in service with other airlines around the world.

Comments

The last passenger airline

[Anonymous Coward]

UPS still operates the 747.

Re:The last passenger airline

[Anonymous Coward]

Lufthansa still has 747.

Farewell, Queen of the Skies

[TigerPlish]

Others in the world still fly the 747 in pax service, enjoy them while you can.

Re:Farewell, Queen of the Skies

[beltsbear]

Which will be at least 15 years. There are new 747's put in use by some overseas carriers. The queen of the skies will be flying after many of us are no longer alive though the numbers will be dropping greatly.

Re:Farewell, Queen of the Skies

[MichaelSmith]

I haven't seen one in Melbourne for years. If I hang out at the airport I might see five B777s for one A380.

Re:Farewell, Queen of the Skies

[Anonymous Coward]

Lufthansa bought a small fleet of 747-800s. They will be around for a while.

Re:Farewell, Queen of the Skies

[jittles]

I haven't seen one in Melbourne for years. If I hang out at the airport I might see five B777s for one A380.

I was just at SFO a few weeks ago and saw at least six 747s in use for passenger service. All by Asian airlines.

Re:Farewell, Queen of the Skies

[MichaelSmith]

Okay thats interesting. The higher load factors must be the difference there.

Re:Farewell, Queen of the Skies

[sconeu]

Yep. Flew LAX-AMS on a KLM 747 in July.

Re:Farewell, Queen of the Skies

[ncc74656]

I've seen British Airways 747s flying into Las Vegas fairly recently. Virgin Atlantic used to fly into here as well, though I'm not sure if that service is still running. I'm sure there are others, though those are the ones I've seen flying when I've been somewhere near the airport.

51 years??

[Anonymous Coward]

The plane manufacturers are getting lazy.

well, actually

[apilosov]

While no US airlines operate 747, you don't have to go abroad. Airlines such as Qantas operate within-US segments on 747. Example, QF11 (LAX-JFK)

Re:well, actually

[jonwil]

Except you can't legally book a ticket on just the LAX-JFK leg because of last-century outdated protectionist laws regulating who can fly where.

Re:well, actually

[dgatwood]

Doesn't that flight use codesharing with a U.S. carrier? That's usually how overseas carriers handle domestic flights, which would mean that you can probably book the flight, just not directly through Quantas.....

Re:well, actually

[pezpunk]

you could also pack yourself up in a box and ship yourself via UPS -- they still use the 747 as well.

Re:well, actually

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

No, it wont work. It departs from international terminal and arrives at an international terminal. They can not comingle passengers needing immigration check with domestic passengers.

Re:well, actually

[dgatwood]

Ah. Yeah, that wouldn't work. Never mind.

Re:well, actually

[Obfuscant]

Why would a flight operating entirely within the US depart or arrive at an international terminal, increasing costs and wasting resources? Use whatever gate the aircraft will fit at. If you have to arrive at an international terminal because that's the only place your airplane will fit, you just route the passengers around the incoming immigration and customs steps. This is a known problem with a trivial solution. Avoid the international terminal costs for departure, since you don't need an international terminal gate for domestic departures. You don't even need an international terminal gate for international departures, I've gone out C gates at ORD lots of times.

Re:well, actually

[networkBoy]

Because it's not terminating at both LAX and JFK, it's actually JFK to AUS (whatever the Melbourne code is) and does a Fuel and unload at LAX for the west coast destinations.

Re:well, actually

[Anonymous Coward]

Because international passengers from australia are onboard. duh.

Re:well, actually

[fustakrakich]

Might be more comfortable too.

Re:well, actually

[Obfuscant]

Because it's not terminating at both LAX and JFK, it's actually JFK to AUS (whatever the Melbourne code is)

MEL. Thanks for correcting the direction information. It's not an LAX-JFK flight, it's QF12 from JFK to LAX. It does not depart from the JFK international terminal, it departs from terminal 7. It arrives at LAX terminal B, which is Bradley International.

If it offloads pax for the west coast, then it is, indeed, carrying people domestically, starting at JFK and ending at LAX. Since you allegedly cannot mix domestic and international pax, they must all be domestic if any of them are.

For the direct flights listed to MEL there is a plane change, as the aircraft going to MEL is not a 747. Everyone off in LAX, please. QF12 terminates there. Domestic. If you want to fly in a 747 in the US, then one way of doing it is to book QF12/QF94 to Melbourne from JFK and get off at LAX. You're paying for the full flight, just exiting the building instead of changing planes, and you are, indeed, flying in a 747 in the US domestically.

There are two different routes to MEL that go either through Sydney or Brisbane on 747s. Since you can't send the same airplane to two different places, there must be a plane change for that, too. It's a two hour layover so there's time to boot everyone and have them come back. All domestic pax, then.

The only reason to use Bradley is because whatever flight (QF16 or QF18) does use that plane is departing internationally and LAX cannot handle international departures from any other terminal. Poor planning. ORD does it, from both C and F concourses, so it can't be a legal problem.

Re: well, actually

[Anonymous Coward]

Rumor has it that Boeing devoted thousands of (outsourced, low wage) man-hours to minimizing passenger comfort on the 787. And it worked! Passenger in-flight suicide rate is 70% higher on 787 than on 747.

Re:well, actually

[jrumney]

Normally such flights will do the immigration check on arrival in San Francisco. They need to get the passengers off for refuelling anyway. They then tell the passengers to reboard the plane at a different gate (directly downstairs from the arrival gate at many airports that separate international from domestic by floor).

Re:well, actually

[TheRaven64]

If you want to see a really stupid protectionist law, take a look at the Fly America Act. Anyone being paid by the US government must fly on a US flag carrier, unless it would add 3 stops or 6 hours to the trip. This means that you typically end up paying more, and often still fly on a plan operated by a non-US carrier due to code shares. Great use of taxpayers' money...

Re:well, actually

[mjwx]

While no US airlines operate 747, you don't have to go abroad. Airlines such as Qantas operate within-US segments on 747. Example, QF11 (LAX-JFK)

QF are in the process of phasing out their 747's. Their current problem is that their 747's are specialised versions built specifically for QANTAS to do trans pacific routes from Australia. So they're still being paid off. All of the trans-pacific routes are serviced by QF A380's now but they still need something for the old 747's to do.

Re:well, actually

[cthulhu11]

So that covers anyone in agribusiness or petrochemicals?

Re:well, actually

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh I was wondering what they were talking about, I didn't think QANTAS had any 747's anymore, haven't seen one in years, actually I thought they were Airbus only until they bought the Dreamliners recently

747 not the Only One

[sycodon]

The A380 is facing the same fate.

It may take another 5 years, but with the new planes like the 787 and the other Airbus planes, the need for huge aircraft is going by the wayside.

Re:747 not the Only One

[known_coward_69]

Not even the 787. Soon the 727 or 737 along with the baby airbus planes will have long range engines capable of long distance flight. Used to be you needed a 747 to go from NYC to Rome or London. Now it's your average tiny plane with hourly or several flights a day which can be rescheduled if not enough tickets are sold.

Re:747 not the Only One

[sycodon]

True Dat.

But hell if I'm going to sit in a 737 for that long

Fuck that Shit.

Re:747 not the Only One

[Luckyo]

No longer being made is not even remotely anything like no longer being flown.

Sunk cost of already produced aircraft is going to be recouped through decades of use.

Re:747 not the Only One

[Anonymous Coward]

Their have been significant advancements since the A380 first went into service a decade ago. The need for huge aircraft hasn't actually diminished as many airports have limited boarding gate numbers while passenger numbers are ever increasing, the A380 problem is it is not the most economical to fly at the moment, a major overhaul of engines, weight etc is needed to keep it viable.

Re:747 not the Only One

[MichaelSmith]

This was Boeing's prediction from 25 years ago. There is just less travel between huge hubs, and there is a lot more point to point travel between smaller airports. The growth of asian and gulf airlines cut into labour costs so it was more economic to operate smaller aircraft.

If most labour had continued to be from Europe and the US, bigger aircraft would have made more sense.

Re:747 not the Only One

[b0s0z0ku]

I'd rather be on a 737, 757, or Mad Dog 80. At least I have a 1/3 to 2/5 chance of a window seat, not 2/9 or 1/5 with 8 or 10 across.

Better yet, put me on a Dash-8 or Embraer where my chances go up to 1/2 or 2/3. I love looking out the window down at the world.

Re:747 not the Only One

[AK Marc]

Funny how unrelated things change everything.

Computers changed the hub model. Before computers, linking 3 hops for hundreds of people was impossible. So if you flew everyone into a hub at 11 a.m., then out of the hub at 1 p.m., you had a 2 hour window, and could get anyone from anywhere to everywhere.

With early computers, you could have more flights, and more complex connections. Today, with more powerful computers, you optimize passengers, not routes, and we learn that mesh routes are best, and the demand/sales is analyzed to predict where to put planes to minimize costs for a passenger (remember, a old hub style required two flight, unless you lived in, or were flying to, a hub). Also, as you fly mesh routes, you cut travel time, which increases demand.

Hub makes sense for flying from US to Europe, where you fly JFK to Heathrow, But within a market, hubs are dying.

Re:747 not the Only One

[Richard_at_work]

Not really - no US airline has ever operated an A380, and the Forbes article talks about Airbus closing the production line.

However, that closing isn't going to happen before 2025, as Airbus still have enough of a backlog to keep the line open that long with the planned reductions in rates. And that's without the much talked about Emirates follow on order, for which to not happen would require a miracle right now.

The 747 production line won't see the 2020s, its dead in the water right now.

Re:747 not the Only One

[Richard_at_work]

Except there isn't less traffic between hubs today, and most 787s thus far delivered are on those hub routes rather than point to point...

Re:747 not the Only One

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Most people prefer aisle seat. But there is nothing wrong in preferring window seat.

Given the data collection ability of airplanes, they may be able to charge you a premium for your window seat while at the same time charging me premium for my adjacent aisle seat.

They know what each of us want and they will make us pay.

Re:747 not the Only One

[MichaelSmith]

Yeah, plus the fact that aircraft are more reliable now so you know in advance when they will need maintenance, You don't need a big base with both maintenance and passenger facilities. You can fly your aircraft to a remote repair shop, and get them back at a known time. Having onboard service life monitoring helps with that a lot.

And a lot less stuff is done in house. Small organisations can handle logistics, food, fuel. Having more contractors would have been difficult in the past, more to manage but offloading that task to software means you can have a more complex business at less cost.

Re:747 not the Only One

[Strider-]

Most people prefer aisle seat. But there is nothing wrong in preferring window seat.

As someone who used to do 100,000+ miles a year, I could never figure this one out. Window seats are infinitely preferable to aisle seats... you don't have to get up when someone else in your row needs to use the loo, and you have a nice, convenient wall that you can lean against and fall asleep. My usual routine when boarding an aircraft was to get into my seat ASAP, buckle up, and sack out.

Re:747 not the Only One

[Strider-]

The 747 production line won't see the 2020s, its dead in the water right now.

I've flown on one of the Lufthansa 747-800is, and it is a glorious bird. (Of course, it helped that I splurged and spent 90,000 points on a first class seat). Even business class and economy was really nice on them, much more spacious than other aircraft I've been on. It's really too bad the economics of these don't work any more.

Re:747 not the Only One

[MichaelSmith]

Let me rephrase that. Growth in traffic between hubs has not increased as much as Airbus would prefer.

Re: 747 not the Only One

[Evergreener]

I canâ(TM)t sleep on airplanes, so aisle seat for me every flight.

Re:747 not the Only One

[Anonymous Coward]

The 727 hasn't been produced in decades! I think Iran is the only country that still flies 727s in passenger service.

Re: 747 not the Only One

[b0s0z0ku]

If I'm not going to be sleeping and am flying over land, at least I can look out the window, sightsee, and daydream, not be tied to a book or a tablet.

Re:747 not the Only One

[Strider-]

This was Boeing's prediction from 25 years ago. There is just less travel between huge hubs, and there is a lot more point to point travel between smaller airports. The growth of asian and gulf airlines cut into labour costs so it was more economic to operate smaller aircraft.

One of the half-jokes in the aviation world is that the A380 is the single greatest marketing coup on the part of Boeing. Many years ago, both Boeing and Airbus were proposing the concept of these super-jumbos, how they would reduce cost per passenger mile, and so forth. The two builders wound up in a marketing race... but the difference is that Boeing never booked an order, so they never actually had to build the thing. Airbus did.

Re:747 not the Only One

[slew]

Except there isn't less traffic between hubs today, and most 787s thus far delivered are on those hub routes rather than point to point...

I'm not so sure that's true. About 1/2 of the 787s appear to be on hub-secondary city vs hub-to-hub routes. The 787s are filling in the routes that don't work economically with a 777...

http://www.airportspotting.com...

For example, you can now fly from San Jose to Heathrow, Beijing, and Narita on a 787. And from San Francisco, you can fly to Amsterdam, Narita, Osaka, Chengu, Shanghai, Tel Aviv, Zurich (and of course some hubs like Heathrow, Paris, Seoul, Melborne, Singapore). Many of these routes did not exist before the 787 and required a hub connection.

As 787 are large planes, naturally, one side is likely going to be a hub because the carriers still have to direct traffic to their 787 routes to fill them up. As smaller planes like 737max and a321neo come on line, then you will start to see more point-to-point (they need even fewer passengers to be profitable, so point-to-point makes more sense than with an 787 (or a350).

What this means is that if you live in a secondary city, you can now fly to more distant hub cities w/o making a connection (which is something that only people in hub cities were able to do previously). Secondary city passengers historically had to make 2 connections to go to another distant secondary city in another country, and for many folks this is now starting to get reduced to one connection which is a big win.

Re:747 not the Only One

[Strider-]

I think they're still flying some in revenue service in Canada, in the high arctic, along with 737-200s. Both of these are among the only midsized western (aka not soviet) jets suitable for operating off the gravel runways you find in places like Resolute Bay and Cambridge Bay. Similar for servicing the diamond mines and so forth.

In the case of the 727s, the engines are up high enough that they won't suck in the gravel. They also have the advantage of the integrated air stair (DB Cooper Special), so they can board and deplane without outside assistance.

The 737-200s are the ones with the skinny engines, and can be fitted with a gravel kit that includes a ski for the front wheel to deflect spraying gravel away from the aircraft, and bleed air devices which replace the cowlings on the engine to direct some of the bleed air forwards and break up vortices that would otherwise cause the engines to vacuum up the runway.

As these aircraft age out, it's going to become harder and harder to service the north; the solution will be to return back to turboprops, but none of them have the cargo or passenger capacity of a 737, except for the (civilian) Hercs, and those are old and aging out as well.

Re:747 not the Only One

[AK Marc]

True. AA had a massive base at DFW, and if a plane needed work, they'd waive all the safety issues to get it to Dallas, then fix it. All the groundcrew worked for AA. Probably the idea of groundcrew being per airport rather than per airline probably came from that. Non-AA airlines would contract with AA for groundcrew. Rather than paying a competitor, pay an independent contractor.

The big ones still schedule scheduled work for specific spots, but will be more flexible if necessary. Often working with the maker to send out mechanics to the airplane.

Outsourcing and computers changed the routes more than the airplanes themselves.

Re:747 not the Only One

[TechyImmigrant]

I've flown business class on long trans-pacific flights both on the 787 and A380. The A380 was a much nicer ride. It's roomy, quieter and smoother, with a better seat.

Re:747 not the Only One

[TechyImmigrant]

The 747 production line won't see the 2020s, its dead in the water right now.

I've flown on one of the Lufthansa 747-800is, and it is a glorious bird. (Of course, it helped that I splurged and spent 90,000 points on a first class seat). Even business class and economy was really nice on them, much more spacious than other aircraft I've been on. It's really too bad the economics of these don't work any more.

Earlier in 2017, I took my family to Europe upstairs in business class on a United 747, because it was the last week that 747 was going to be in service and probably the last chance my family would have to fly upstairs in a 747. I've been upstairs in a 747 a few times but the rest of my family never had.

Re:747 not the Only One

[Anonymous Coward]

Window seats have less leg room due to the curve of the fuselage.
With an aisle seat you can get up whenever you want.
Windows usually have to be closed except during takeoff and landing from my experience.

Re:747 not the Only One

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this actually true?
Airports are already struggling with the current number of airplanes.
How will replacing large airplanes with more smaller ones help?

Re:747 not the Only One

[Anonymous Coward]

Window seat on most domestic flights for me, aisle for long haul when I can't get business.

Re:747 not the Only One

[Hognoxious]

Window seats have less leg room due to the curve of the fuselage.

Even criemer doesn't have problems with the sideways legroom.

Re:747 not the Only One

[magzteel]

The 747 production line won't see the 2020s, its dead in the water right now.

I've flown on one of the Lufthansa 747-800is, and it is a glorious bird. (Of course, it helped that I splurged and spent 90,000 points on a first class seat). Even business class and economy was really nice on them, much more spacious than other aircraft I've been on. It's really too bad the economics of these don't work any more.

Earlier in 2017, I took my family to Europe upstairs in business class on a United 747, because it was the last week that 747 was going to be in service and probably the last chance my family would have to fly upstairs in a 747. I've been upstairs in a 747 a few times but the rest of my family never had.

It was nice up there. It felt like a private plane. So much room in the window seats.

Re:747 not the Only One

[sunking2]

Not really, you aren't going to see small planes take over. There's simply too many people flying intercontinental for it to make sense. More smaller planes just means more congestion at airports. Not that too large like the A380 doesn't cause its own issues, but the 787 is a pretty good happy medium.

The 747 is gone and the A380 will not last very long because a 4 engined aircraft is crazy stupid expensive to operate. The GP7000 is about $15M a pop, but the real issue is in maintenance. The more parts the more to keep running, halve the number of engines and you save tons.

Re:747 not the Only One

[sunking2]

I do Hartford to Dublin fairly frequently on a 757. If it were another hour longer I'd choose to connect through NY/Boston to get on a bigger plane. 757s are not fun for more than 6-7 hours.

Re:747 not the Only One

[b0s0z0ku]

Anything not to get the center section. 757 is perfectly sized, and you have a 33% chance of a window seat. Fuck sitting where you can't see outside.

Re: 747 not the Only One

[Reverend Green]

The 787 is such a horrible airplane. I hate, hate, hate being a passenger on one.

When will the Chinese bring out their first long range airliner? They're beating is at absolutely everything else, so I bet they can make a better plane too.

Re: 747 not the Only One

[Anonymous Coward]

Great idea! Heads they win, tails we lose. Capitalism at its finest!

Re: 747 not the Only One

[Anonymous Coward]

America is losing civilian air superiority. ...sigh...

Fuck Financialism and fuck the Baby Boomers. They sold us up the river.

Re:747 not the Only One

[Anonymous Coward]

"Window seats are infinitely preferable to aisle seats"
Yes, till you're required to drink 4 liters of water everyday, and *you* are the one that needs to get up and go to the loo. Suddenly, the window is not too convenient. I know...

Re:747 not the Only One

[Anonymous Coward]

Hub makes sense for flying from US to Europe, where you fly JFK to Heathrow, But within a market, hubs are dying.

Someone hasn't flown to Europe in awhile. I go regularly. There are many non-stop flights from DC to anywhere on the continent: London, Paris, Rome, Frankfurt, Budapest, Prague, Vienna, Copenhagen, Berlin, just about any major city. Not always the cheapest but always there.

Same for many other East Coast cities. Lots of flights from Detroit, Charlotte, Philly, etc. Dulles International isn't the easiest airport to get to, so I always check flights that are one hop from Reagan airport too.

Re:747 not the Only One

[cyn1c77]

Funny how unrelated things change everything.

Computers changed the hub model. Before computers, linking 3 hops for hundreds of people was impossible. So if you flew everyone into a hub at 11 a.m., then out of the hub at 1 p.m., you had a 2 hour window, and could get anyone from anywhere to everywhere.

With early computers, you could have more flights, and more complex connections. Today, with more powerful computers, you optimize passengers, not routes, and we learn that mesh routes are best, and the demand/sales is analyzed to predict where to put planes to minimize costs for a passenger (remember, a old hub style required two flight, unless you lived in, or were flying to, a hub). Also, as you fly mesh routes, you cut travel time, which increases demand.

Hub makes sense for flying from US to Europe, where you fly JFK to Heathrow, But within a market, hubs are dying.

I kind of liked the hub model in 1990. Seats were more spacious and the flight crew were pleasant and not overworked. They even gave free food on the airplanes and transported my luggage for free.

Are you saying that computers and the mesh routing have taken that all away from me?

Re:747 not the Only One

[jrumney]

Every second aisle seat has less leg room due to the entertainment system box being located there. I'm starting to prefer centre seats, but apparently there isn't a premium option for those.

Re:747 not the Only One

[thsths]

This.

I think the crammed all the seats of a 747 into a 737 now, with seat footprint about 30% smaller than 20 years ago. It sucks to fly now.

Re:747 not the Only One

[thegarbz]

As someone who currently does do only a bit less that many miles a year I greatly preference isle seats. In most plane configurations if you fly economy you end up with a more comfortable leg configuration, especially on smaller planes where the curvature of the fuselage doesn't eat into your leg room. Plus you can get up at any point without having to deal with the people next to you (kind of like the opposite of your benefit).

Re: 747 not the Only One

[Anonymous Coward]

Of all planes, why do you hate the 787?!

Re:747 not the Only One

[TheRaven64]

I prefer aisle seats, for several reasons:

• If I want to get up, I don't have to climb over someone (and getting up periodically and stretching your legs on a long flight is a good idea for avoiding DVT).
• Most of the time, I can stretch my legs out into the aisle.
• I can get up and go as soon as the fasten seatbelts sign goes off, usually getting near the front of the queue for immigration / customs.
• It's easier to flag down a flight attendant.
• The person between me and the sun gets to act as a radiation shield (thanks!).

Re: 747 not the Only One

[TheRaven64]

Except at takeoff and landing, mostly you can see clouds through the window. And the reflected sunlight is so bright (white clouds, thinner atmosphere) that you're better off not looking at it for too long if you don't want to damage your eyes.

Re: 747 not the Only One

[TheRaven64]

I've only flown one a 787 once (United, Economy Plus), but it was far nicer than economy class on any other aircraft I've flown in, by any operator. The air pressure and oxygen content was noticeably higher, so I didn't get dry eyes or skin at the end, I got a few hours of deep, restful, sleep, and I even managed a few hours of productive work. The seat recline was more sensible, sliding forwards at the bottom so you increased the legroom of the person behind when you went forward. In-seat power worked well and meant that I landed with my laptop fully charged, even after a few hours of work. The ceiling was higher, making the plane feel spacious.

Given the option, I'd still rather teleport, but if I have to fly then I'd prefer a 787 to anything else I've flown in.

Re: 747 not the Only One

[Anonymous Coward]

If I'm not going to be sleeping and am flying over land, at least I can look out the window, sightsee, and daydream, not be tied to a book or a tablet.

Yes, who would ever want to read a book. Who would want to educate themselves? Newsflash: the world of books isn't just about thrillers and cheap fiction like 50 shades of grey...

Re:747 not the Only One

[Applehu Akbar]

And on 747 upstairs, your carryon space is beside you, not overhead or underfoot.

Re:747 not the Only One

[tehcyder]

The person between me and the sun gets to act as a radiation shield (thanks!).

Either you'd run out of sensible reasons or you are incredibly paranoid even by slashdot standards.

Re:747 not the Only One

[TheRaven64]

I don't know how much a difference it makes, but you do absorb a lot more radiation in a plane than on the ground, and I fly enough that I'd prefer to minimise this.

Re:747 not the Only One

[houghi]

On long flights I prefer window seats for the reason you said. On the short flights I prefer the aisle seat. Just a bit more place to stretch your legs. On longer seats you have more legroom than on short flights.
When you fly say 2 hours, I will not be able to sleep anyway. And standing up is more a nice change than that it is a hinder.

In fact just booked a flight for two people and booked aisle seats at the emergency exit. That increased the price form 30EUR to 40EUR. Bilbao-Brussels with Brussels Airlines. 2 hour flight.

Re:747 not the Only One

[mjwx]

Most people prefer aisle seat. But there is nothing wrong in preferring window seat.

As someone who used to do 100,000+ miles a year, I could never figure this one out. Window seats are infinitely preferable to aisle seats... .

This, my shoulders are 53 CM bone to bone (not including the fleshy bits). I prefer the window seat to the aisle seat because my shoulders do not fit in a 19" seat, let alone a 17" seat because they're 20"+ wide.

I depend on the window recess to sit remotely comfortably. Sitting on the aisle seat is just an invitation to have everything that goes past knock my shoulders and elbow. This is also why I cant stand flying on a 787 and would take any other aircraft type over it no matter how old... because the 787 has no window recesses (or window shades).

Re: 747 not the Only One

[b0s0z0ku]

Let me rephrase that -- I get panicky if I'm stuck in a damn tube without access to a window. I'll take the risk of damaging my eyes. Window seat for life, babeh!

Re:747 not the Only One

[mjwx]

Not even the 787. Soon the 727 or 737 along with the baby airbus planes will have long range engines capable of long distance flight. Used to be you needed a 747 to go from NYC to Rome or London. Now it's your average tiny plane with hourly or several flights a day which can be rescheduled if not enough tickets are sold.

The problem that the Jumbo's have is that most of the flights they were previously used for (read trans-Atlantic and most trans-pacific routes) are now serviceable by twin-jets aircraft operating on ETOPS 240 and beyond. The second issue is that airlines have been shoving more and more seats into a smaller space. It used to take a 747 to move what they now pack into a 787. So the B747 has been dying a quiet death whilst the A380 has been relegated to long range hub to hub flights (I.E. LHR to SIN).

Re:747 not the Only One

[dfm3]

It all comes down to personal preference. Taller individuals may want an aisle seat for the legroom, I prefer a window because I have something to lean against and (try to) sleep, and I like to look out the window to see what's below. But if I'm traveling with my toddler I want an aisle and middle seat, so that we can get up with minimal disruption for needed potty breaks. Otherwise, I'm okay to stay put until my seatmates stand up, and I don't like the annoyance of being bumped, jostled, and prodded by passengers and service carts trying to negotiate the aisle.

I've flown on planes of all sizes, from 747's to 4-seat Cessnas, and I much prefer the medium sized, single aisle planes over the larger ones - think the A-320 or 737. There's much less hassle trying to board/deplane, shorter lines at customs, service doesn't take as long, and there's usually less of a wait for the lavatories. Personally I'm completely averse to the middle row seating, especially on planes like the 767 or the (thankfully now defunct) DC-10 with it's horrible 5-across middle row, where the high proportion of middle seats meant that you were more likely to be stuck without the convenience of either an aisle or a window.

Re:747 not the Only One

[Maritz]

Tinfoil won't cut it, but definitely consider a lead-lined hat.

Re:747 not the Only One

[cthulhu11]

Conversely, in a window seat when YOU need to hit the bathroom, you need to poke/wake up 1-2 people in your row and climb over them. You also are more constrained on the sides, especially when the passenger in the adjacent seat insists on putting their tray down for the whole fight. Putting my head against a hard, cold, thrumming window / hull is about the least conducive thing possible for sleeping.

In an aisle seat one can spread a bit into the aisle, go to the bathroom without struggle, and under-seat / overhead storage is readily accessible without gymnastics.

Re:747 not the Only One

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows usually have to be closed except during takeoff and landing from my experience.

I'm not sure what airlines you're flying, but it's definitely not the same ones as I do. I've never seen anyone being forced to close the shades. Sometimes they suggest it during long haul flights because you can at least simulate night somehow, but they don't enforce it.

Re:747 not the Only One

[Anonymous Coward]

How often do you get up to use the loo during flights?

That's nice, I guess

[H3lldr0p]

so what is being flown as the common replacement to this industry stalwart?

Re:That's nice, I guess

[squiggleslash]

A fleet of computer controlled Cesnas.

Re:That's nice, I guess

[known_coward_69]

smaller planes are able to fly longer ranges. in the 90's I couldn't fly Atlanta to Seattle without a stop over. Now a 727 can fly coast to coast

Re:That's nice, I guess

[Anonymous Coward]

Cattle cars.

When I was a kid 40 years ago, a 747 still would have a lounge and cool things for a kid to explore. New planes have nothing but crammed in seating. You’re lucky to get a hot meal now.

I remember the old Tristars too, and the galley that served you a hot breakfast or lunch on every flight.

Re: That's nice, I guess

[Anonymous Coward]

If youâ(TM)re flying in a 727, youâ(TM)re fucked.

Re:That's nice, I guess

[MichaelSmith]

B777 right now. B787 if the engine problems can be resolved. Right now a lot of 787s aren't flying due to engine maintenance issues.

Re:That's nice, I guess

[Luckyo]

Literally, nothing. It's not that the aircraft is outdated. It's that it's very concept of large, heavy, four engine aircraft is outdated in civilian use.

Large four engined aircraft are significantly more expensive to operate compared to two-engined variants, while having much higher requirements of the airfield, making their potential flight destination list much smaller. Their primary advantage actually had to do with certain regulatory framework, which requires aircraft flying over oceans to have certain amount of flight time on minus one engine (i.e. case of engine failure). Essentially they are required to be always in range of an acceptable airfield if one engine dies. Modern twin engined aircraft like A350 and 787 have incredibly high range on one engine, meaning they are cheaper to operate on the same route while being acceptably reliable for regulatory agencies.

Add to this the fact that primary model of civilian aviation due to this change has largely shifted from hub model (large hub with large long range aircraft, from which small aircraft service nearby smaller airfields as connection flights) to point to point model (smaller twin engined aircraft are economical to operate directly to said small airfields, bypassing the hubs entirely) and you see why age of jumbo jets is slowly passing. It's not just that they are being replaced by other aircraft on the same routes. It's that route structure itself is changing.

Re: That's nice, I guess

[Anonymous Coward]

what is this 727 you speak of? It hasn't been built in 30 years. Are they re-engining it or something?

Re:That's nice, I guess

[Anonymous Coward]

777, 787, A350, A330.

All with similar or better range to 747. Fewer passengers, of course, but better economics.

Re: That's nice, I guess

[Anonymous Coward]

Between the yuuuge batteries, really great batteries, and the coal power engines, they could be Great Again

Re:That's nice, I guess

[crunchygranola]

Not for coast-to-coast travel (only about half-way), but my favorite airplane to fly on in recent years is the small Embraers, only three seats across the entire aircraft body. Everyone gets a window, or aisle, or both. Quick to board and deplane.

Re:That's nice, I guess

[b0s0z0ku]

Coast-to-coast on an ERJ would be great -- easy to stick your feet into the aisle for more legroom when the flight attendant is not walking by.

Re:That's nice, I guess

[Anonymous Coward]

Who cares? Within a few years, couple of decades at most, air travel will be all but extinct. We won't have any fuel left and we'll find out the hard way that while renewables are fine to survive, they cannot sustain our current levels of mobility. The world is about to become very small indeed. Our grandchildren will most probably need a permit to board a train.

Re:That's nice, I guess

[b0s0z0ku]

Easy enough to power trains using nuclear or renewables -- overhead electric wires. If we need fuel for aircraft, hydrogen-burning planes have been done. Hydrogen is not a fuel, but it works as a means of energy storage.

Re:That's nice, I guess

[Anonymous Coward]

You guys have been saying that for like 50 years bro, if you cite your sources they'll get torn the hell up.

Re:That's nice, I guess

[gravewax]

A few years? even at current consumption the reserves are enough for more than 50 years. If we haven't solved the problem of energy by then we all deserve to die.

Re:That's nice, I guess

[Anonymous Coward]

Coast-to-coast on an ERJ would be great

Yeah, sure .. no seat padding, not enough sound insulation to drown out the noise of the engines, and a cramped cabin with not enough overhead storage, and a lav which is way too small. Unless you're in a private jet configuration with more legroom and better sound insulation, the ERJ is a terrible plane.

IMO, the 737 remains one of the best passenger aircraft to have been in service ... lots of head room, a good amount of overhead storage, the potential for good legroom if the airline isn't overly cheap, an acceptable lav, and a couple of engines which were somewhat overpowered which means you always have reserve power to get you out of problems (which pilots love).

Years ago when I was associated with the airline industry, the maintenance people and pilots all held up the 737 as everything you could do right on aircraft design.

Cross country on an ERJ??? Oh hell no. Your ass will be numb and your ears will be ringing, and the pilot is going to have to wrestle it in any wind.

Give me a 737 with a decent seat pitch any day, because not only will you be comfortable, but your pilot won't be fighting with it the whole time. A 737 in a 2 and 2 config is a dream to fly on as a passenger.

Re:That's nice, I guess

[b0s0z0ku]

Doesn't bother me -- I'd rather fly on a machine, not a giant flying couch. I'd just bring some earplugs. Baggage isn't a big deal -- gate-check that which doesn't fit, get it upon deplaning. No fighting over luggage bins with other cattle.

Also, the ERJ-135/145 are not fly-by-wire -- the pilots still have a direct connection from their yokes to the control surfaces. Makes me more confident that the thing can be hand-flown if needed even if the autopilot cumpooters poop out.

Re:That's nice, I guess

[networkBoy]

Nevermind that the USAF already has biofuels in test that are grown from mushrooms and JP-4 compatible. Not sure how cost effective they are right now, but cost effectiveness can change just based on scarcity of what it's replacing...

Re:That's nice, I guess

[Luckyo]

Here in Europe, a good example of this model is that you now have "secondary airport to secondary airport" travel that is widespread, instead of "drive/fly to the main hub, take off in a big aircraft, fly to another hub, fly/drive from said hub to your destination".

Small aircraft like Embraer/Bombardier models work well for the "secondary to secondary" model, as they are small enough to only require a relatively small payload of people for economically viable service of the route. But they used to be occupied mostly by the "main hub to secondary hub" travel, as triple and quad engine jumbos hauled people between the hubs. Now that dual engine aircraft are massively displacing these, the small aircraft are freed to service the "secondary to secondary" routes where it's possible in an economically viable fashion.

Re:That's nice, I guess

[Luckyo]

We have more than enough fuel for at least a century. Likely more. Rather surprising to see this degree of idiotic environmentalist catastrophism still being regurgitated, in the age of shale and geopolitical struggles over huge marine deposits.

Re:That's nice, I guess

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't bother me -- I'd rather fly on a machine, not a giant flying couch. I'd just bring some earplugs.

LOL, I like a little comfort and legroom thanks .. fly WestJet sometime in their Plus fare or anybody who is treating it like a mid-range thing which isn't sheer luxo but still willing to give you some seat pitch... sit in 3D (aisle on the left side behind the row who got the bulkhead) ... the middle seat has been blocked out as cup-holders, free cabin service, and a generous amount of legroom and headroom, and the 737 has gobs of overhead space.

There is no other way to make a 4+ hour flight comfy.

I don't like arriving feeling like I've been crammed in for hours. And I'll take the smoother ride and the feeling that even in crappy weather the engines can still cough up more if needed.

Also, the ERJ-135/145 are not fly-by-wire -- the pilots still have a direct connection from their yokes to the control surfaces.

And the flight safety rating of the 737 tells me I'm not so worried about that eventuality. Millions of flight hours, millions of passengers, lots of safety.

The ERJ as ran by most airlines is a paper-thin seat, not enough padding, and a little too much sense they might need that mechanical connection when it runs out of power to fight off a storm.

But, anyway, we digress ... happy flights! :-P

You like the ERJ, I like the 737 ... we probably both hate airlines and airports. :-P

Re:That's nice, I guess

[b0s0z0ku]

737 still has hydromechanical controls, with no fly-by-wire cumpuker in the middle. Not as simple as the ERJ, but better than Airbus Eurogarbage.

Re:That's nice, I guess

[Solandri]

That's mostly correct. 2 engines are more efficient than 4 engines (for the same amount of total thrust). That's why the 777 beat the A340 into a bloody pulp in the market, and why the airlines demanded Airbus redesign the A350 when it was first proposed. Airbus tried to make it a 787 competitor, but the airlines really wanted a 777 competitor, so convinced Airbus to make the A350 larger (only the largest capacity 787 matches the smallest capacity A350). Likewise, 1 engine is more efficient than 2 (leaving me to wonder if in the future, airliners will operate on a single engine during cruise, with the second engine used only for takeoff and as a backup).

However, back in the 1960s and 1970s when the 747 was introduced, there were some other factors favoring 4 engines.

• This was pre-Arab oil embargo. Fuel didn't cost as much, so fuel efficiency wasn't as high a priority.
• Engine design hadn't progressed to the point where you could generate enough thrust for such a large plane with just 2 engines. Heck, the DC-8 and 707 (introduced just a decade before the 747) were 4-engined planes despite having the passenger capacity of a modern 737 or A320. And the much smaller 727 was three engines. The big technological leap was the transition from a turbojet to a turbofan. A turbojet relies on throwing the exhaust gases backward at high velocity to generate thrust. A turbofan uses part of the exhaust gases to spin a ducted fan blade which pushes non-exhaust air backward to generate thrust. Basically the same thing as a turboprop (a propeller driven by a jet engine, instead of a piston engine), except the propeller is ducted. IIRC, nowadays close to 90% of the thrust comes from the bypass fans, only about 10% from the exhaust jet.
• In older days, many airport facilities weren't as modernized. A plane which suffered an engine failure might not be able to have it repaired at the destination. It would have to fly with the failed engine back to an airport with a modern repair facility. You can't do that with a twin-engine plane without violating safety regulations, but you can with a 4-engine plane. Pilots of the DC-10 and L1011 (tri-jets) would frequently leave the #2 engine (located up in the tail) running at certain airports which didn't have the facilities to jump-start that engine if the built-in starter failed. Nowadays, most airports even in developing countries are modernized enough to maintain and repair most engines, at least well enough for the plane to fly to a better repair facility on two engines.
• Older airport runways weren't as luxuriously long as at modern airports. In the event a plane has a reject (abort) a takeoff due to an engine failure, a twin engine plane only has 50% of its thrust available for reversing and slowing the plane down. A 4-engine plane has 75% of its thrust available for slowing down, so can safely take off on a shorter runway.
• As you mention, ETOPS, or how far a twin-engine plane could safely fly with one failed engine, didn't exist back then. It was simply considered too dangerous to fly a twin-engine passenger plane out past its glide range over the sea.

Re: That's nice, I guess

[Anonymous Coward]

Hillaryists sure do want America to be a banana republic.

Re:That's nice, I guess

[dunkelfalke]

So you'd rather have the pilot fly you into the ground? Or maybe you are a fan of frayed steering cables that can snap and leave a control surface in the whatever state the aerodynamics want it to be?
Stop living in the past.

Re:That's nice, I guess

[thegarbz]

Description nitpick: A turbofan doesn't use the exhaust gas to push non-exhaust air backwards, but rather the fan is connected via gearbox to the main shaft. It is actively driven by the turbine.

But as you said, basically a turboprop with ducting.

Re:That's nice, I guess

[Anonymous Coward]

The magic word is "ETOPS120".

In the 70s if you wanted to fly over the Atlantic it was mandatory by regulation to have more than twon engines engines (safety reasons). This also explain horrors like the trister (three engines, had it's most popular time at the end of the 70s and during the '80s).

Then came ETOPS60 (Enhanced Twin Operations), allowing North Atlantic flight as long as you were always no more than 60 minutes flight from a an Airport you could land in. But it was too short a distance, nobody was interested. You'd have to follow a flight path so much north, that it would cost you more than the savings.

With ETOPS120 it became feasible and you got twins doing North Atlantic routes, allowing 2 hours distance from a safe landing.

Now there is ETOPS 180, 3 hours, and this allows economic twin engine operations almost on every route.

Obviously these are general rating, both airplane and crew needs to be "ETOPS" rated. The plane has technical requirements, the crew training requirements.

That's all that is needed why airlines were using four engine(with some three engine ones as exception) planes and now are using twins. It also explains why they are not using single engines, but would do that if regulations would allow it.

Re:That's nice, I guess

[Anonymous Coward]

What bullshit is this FBW scepticism? The 777 and 787 are already FBW. part of the 737NG will be FBW.

It's been a safe technology for over two decades now, and Boeing's 777 sold like hot cakes even though it was their first commercial airliner with it.

Re:That's nice, I guess

[Alioth]

There's also the issue of ETOPS. There was a time where legally a transoceanic airline flight required at least 3 engines. ETOPS (Extended-range Twin-engine Operational Performance Standards ... or Engines Turn or Passengers Swim) does away with that restriction, and over time larger and larger ETOPS limits have been introduced.

Re:That's nice, I guess

[tehcyder]

I'd rather fly on a machine, not a giant flying couch.

If you don't need a sheepskin flying jacket and goggles to fly in it, it's not a real plane.

Re:That's nice, I guess

[stud9920]

The big technological leap was the transition from a turbojet to a turbofan. A turbojet relies on throwing the exhaust gases backward at high velocity to generate thrust. A turbofan uses part of the exhaust gases to spin a ducted fan blade which pushes non-exhaust air backward to generate thrust. Basically the same thing as a turboprop (a propeller driven by a jet engine, instead of a piston engine), except the propeller is ducted. IIRC, nowadays close to 90% of the thrust comes from the bypass fans, only about 10% from the exhaust jet

I'm not a fluid dynamics engineer, but as you seem knowledgeable: could you or someone else explain me why using the exhaust to drive a ducted fan or propeller has an advantage over just using the exhaust as direct reaction mass? Newton's 3rd law and Thermodynamics's first law *seem* to indicate me one can break even at best.

Re:That's nice, I guess

[b0s0z0ku]

Better than a cumpootah flying you into the ground. LUDD!

Re:That's nice, I guess

[b0s0z0ku]

The main flight controls of a 737NG are still hydromechanical, not run by a computer. I'd rather be on a 737 than an 777 or 787.

Re:That's nice, I guess

[Anonymous Coward]

Most turbofans are not geared, as it is difficult to build an efficient, reliable gearbox to transmit that kind of power at those speeds. For example, the PW1000 series engines has a gearbox that has to transmit 20MW and whose input can be up to 15,000 rpm!

The P&W just went into service a couple years ago and I don't think any other commercial airliner turbofan has a gearbox.

dom

Cargo

[Anonymous Coward]

A number of cargo carriers still use the 747 (freighter). And some will continue for quite some time.

Re:Cargo

[bobbied]

I'm guessing that the 747 will be in use for decades to come both for freight and passenger service. Last time I looked at the order stack, Boeing was still building the things though the orders on the books had fallen to less than a dozen so production was going to wrap up really soon. Old passenger configurations are fairly easy to convert to freight service, so I'm betting these will be flying freight for decades.

The 747 is a pack mule with HUGE payloads into and out of standard airports and reasonable economy if you don't try to go too fast. The aircraft is *cheap* for it's capacity and there are parts all over the place so it's inexpensive to maintain for freight service.

Flying out of Hong Kong

[leelapolis]

Back in the late 90's I flew to Hong Kong several times with 747's out of MSP via Narita Japan. Two memorable trips: one was flying into the old Hong Kong Kaitek airport and leaving via the new Hong Kong on the first flight that Northwest Airlines (now Delta) had out of the new airport. The other was a non-stop of 16 hours from MSP to Hong Kong.

Re:Flying out of Hong Kong

[nhtshot]

I also have fond memories of riding a 47 into Hong Kong and Narita. I'll miss the ole' girl.

Re:Flying out of Hong Kong

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to fly it. Still remember the first time I sat in the seat (right side - FO). Looked down onto the roof of the terminal. Couldn't believe how narrow the taxiway looked from up there.

Funny thing... where the size really impresses you is when you get to the tail on the walk-around. The horizontal stab is huge, and it is way up there.

We called it 'the whale'.

Ask the Pilot

[AlanObject]

I put in a request to Patrick Smith to write a blog entry on this. He hasn't commented on this that I have seen but anything you would want to know about it he will know.

No need to go overseas

[jittles]

The summary is incorrect. You can still fly on a 747 in the US, just not on a domestic airline. Just go to SFO and you'll see plenty of 747s parked at the international terminals. They just aren't flying for any US based carrier.

Re:No need to go overseas

[Anonymous Coward]

The summary is incorrect. You can still fly on a 747 in the US, just not on a domestic airline. Just go to SFO and you'll see plenty of 747s parked at the international terminals. They just aren't flying for any US based carrier.

at international terminals you have cleared customs and immigration. You're not on US soil...

Re:No need to go overseas

[magarity]

The summary is incorrect. You can still fly on a 747 in the US, just not on a domestic airline. Just go to SFO and you'll see plenty of 747s parked at the international terminals. They just aren't flying for any US based carrier.

That's exactly what the summary said, you just didn't parse it properly. In order to ride in a 747, you need to travel abroad. As in, leave from the international terminal.

Re:No need to go overseas

[jittles]

The summary is incorrect. You can still fly on a 747 in the US, just not on a domestic airline. Just go to SFO and you'll see plenty of 747s parked at the international terminals. They just aren't flying for any US based carrier.

That's exactly what the summary said, you just didn't parse it properly. In order to ride in a 747, you need to travel abroad. As in, leave from the international terminal.

Except that Quantas, for instance, has an LAX->JFK 747 flight.

Re:No need to go overseas

[Anonymous Coward]

"You're not on US soil..."

Not true.

Re:No need to go overseas

[Strider-]

The 747 production line won't see the 2020s, its dead in the water right now.

Which you can't book due to rules related to Cabotage. I once got shit from Air Canada because I booked two tickets back-to-back, to fly HOU->YYZ->DCA (Hey, I was doing a mileage run, and it was cheaper than HOU->DCA due to sales). They sent me a nastygram citing the regulations prohibiting them from offering flights like that. It didn't matter that it was two separate tickets; or that it touched down in Toronto... They were a foreign airline, carrying a passenger between two US cities. I suppose I might have gotten away with it, had I not checked in for the YYZ->DCA flight in HOU, and/or not checked a bag all the way through.

Re:No need to go overseas

[Anonymous Coward]

It is spelt Qantas and the LAXJFK flight is just a leg of a longer international flight to/from Aus. If you are going to count those then their are a lot of flights that land on the coast before traversing the US.

Re: No need to go overseas

[Anonymous Coward]

True say, elsewise arrest no

Re:No need to go overseas

[Anonymous Coward]

Is the US the last place in the world with anti-competitive bullshit like that?

Re:No need to go overseas

[Strider-]

Nope, it's pretty common for countries to prohibit cabotage. Canada won't allow it, which caused a diplomatic Tiff with the UAE as they wanted Emirates to be able to fly YVR->YYZ->DXB and carry domestic pax between YVR and YYZ. Pretty much the only place you'll see it is within the EU, and then only from airlines that are registered within the EU.

This is also known as the eighth freedom.

747 shuttles

[b0s0z0ku]

Does Japan still fly coach-only 747s on short shuttle flights within the country? I flew one across the mountains Tokyo-Toyama in the 90s -- up and down like an elevator, all of 20 minutes' flight time.

Re:747 shuttles

[Anonymous Coward]

Japanese short-haul are not that short: a friend of mine told me he once had a flight on a 747 between Tel-Aviv and Jerusalem, less than 40 miles. That's burning fuel for the sake of burning fuel.
It was an international flight (coming from Paris) but serving both destinations in Israel, but it was over 20 years ago.

[OT] How do I turn off boldface summaries?

[Anonymous Coward]

Editors, when you do that it seems like you're shouting.

Re:Lets fly the last one into a skyscraper

[AK Marc]

Too soon.

Air Force airlines still operates at least 6 747s

[schwit1]

4 x E-4B
2 x VC-25

727?

[Anonymous Coward]

smaller planes are able to fly longer ranges. in the 90's I couldn't fly Atlanta to Seattle without a stop over. Now a 727 can fly coast to coast

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Re:Lets fly the last one into a skyscraper

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we make jokes about Pearl Harbor yet?

Think I got away with it

[Hognoxious]

I remember when they had 87s, 111s and 217s.

Oh, wait. Lufthansa.

Takes me back...

[LVSlushdat]

The one and only time I ever flew on a 747 was back in July 1971, from Dallas to Los Angeles. I was in the Army at the time and was going home for a long weekend. Airlines back then had "military standby" fares, and I recall paying $97 round trip for a ticket from Dallas to San Diego via LA and back. Since this was the 4th July weekend and it was a standby ticket, I did some serious standing-by, to the tune of 13 hours. I arrived at Dallas Love Field at about noon, bought my ticket, and proceeded to check Delta's schedule. To make a long story short, EVERY flight from Dallas to LA or Dallas direct to San Diego was packed to the gills, and since I was not the only standby passenger, I was on a waiting list. Along about 6 or 7pm, I began to seriously wonder if I was going to get out of Dallas this day. I went back to the Delta ticket counter and asked if there was anything else going towards LA today.. The agent said "we have one more flight at 1am, and I can guarantee you that you will get on it...". The obviously question to him was "How can you be so sure?", and his answer was the fact it was Delta's Atlanta-Dallas-LA "redeye" and it was one of their new 747 jumbos. So buoyed up by this, I went and got some dinner and went to the gate that it would be arriving at in about 6 hours, and proceeded to wait/nap/watch planes.. It arrived, I got on, along with a couple of other standby passengers, and had my mind blown.. It was indeed a 747, with 10 cabin crew and .... TWENTY PASSENGERS.. Today that flight would have been cancelled...

Re:Lets fly the last one into a skyscraper

[AK Marc]

Michael Bay did.

I flew on the final revenue flight for one of them

[dfm3]

I was able to book a round trip to South Korea on one of Delta's 747's last month, on what ended up being the final overseas journey for that particular airplane. I didn't realize this until the flight crew informed us as we arrived back at Detroit, and as I confirmed later the plane then sat for a few more weeks before making the trip to the Pinal boneyard just before Christmas. What made the farewell especially sad was...

- There was virtually no fanfare. The flight crew and a few of us passengers lingered several minutes for photos before we deplaned, but there was nothing to mark the occasion.
- The aircraft was really showing its age. Little things throughout the passenger cabin like a nonworking lavatory (sealed off by duct tape), broken headphone jacks, flaky call buttons, heavily patched floor panels, and stuck windowshades were frequent reminders that our plane was nearing its end of service.
- When we arrived back in Detriot, the entire remaining Delta 747 fleet (5 aircraft) was present at the airfield. Two of the planes would be in service for another week, but our pilot told me that three of them were waiting for the farewell tour or were being sent directly to Pinal.
- The plane was packed out with flight enthusiasts who, like myself, jumped on the chance to travel in a 747 for what may likely be the last time. It wasn't difficult for us to find each other, and there were dozens of us.

Kalitta Air and Atlas Air sill flying 747s

[ZedNaught]

Both Kalitta Air and Atlas Air are still flying 747s.

Human civilization is over the hill....

[Anonymous Coward]

The Hoover dam visitors' center took longer to build and had more fatalities than the dam did almost 100 years ago.

New fighter jets are slower and have less range than jets built decades ago.

Not only have we failed to colonize Mars, we haven't even been back to the moon in decades.

The Sears Tower took 18 months to become the tallest building on the planet. Today buildings half as tall take 2x as long.

The list goes on and on.

Every job should go to the most qualified person, not quota hires.

Not 51 years in service

[pablojr]

> But as of today, after 51 long years in service
Not exactly. First maiden flight: February 9, 1969. First commercial flight: January 21st, 1970 by Pan Am on New York–London route
So it's been "merely" 47 years of service...

Re:I flew on the final revenue flight for one of t

[Anonymous Coward]

I was on the last United passenger 747 flight from Frankfurt to San Francisco. They had a lot of fanfare including a fire engine water salute as we taxied in. At the terminal there was an additional ground crew salute followed by press photos and a lot of nostalgic people. The cabin crew and flight crew were very emotional.

I had no idea when I bought the ticket.

Re:I flew on the final revenue flight for one of t

[Anonymous Coward]

Strike that, SF to Frankfurt on October 27th.

Re:I flew on the final revenue flight for one of t

[vandamme]

"back in Detriot,"

That slip is too soon for those of us who were there in '67.