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.

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Except you can't legally book a ticket on just the LAX-JFK leg because of last-century outdated protectionist laws regulating who can fly where.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

[pezpunk]

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

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

[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

[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-]

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

[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

[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

[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: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.

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: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.

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.

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.