FlyUSAir wrote:

Oh boy, can't wait for the skies to be littered with 737-15000's that are the same 737 design but the length of New York to Philadelphia. Innovation is dead.

Not exactly related to your statement, but a few years ago I got bored, (really fucking bored), on a work trip. I worked out that even subtracting flight deck and empenages, if you lined up the fuselages of every 737 made, you'd have a Boeing tunnel covering the distance between LAX and the Vegas strip.

It's a bit more now.

LAX772LR wrote:

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

A bit off topic, but what the hell is up with all these "twins/big twins are so boring; the world sucks now" postings? I get that a lot of us like the 747's lines*, but there is a tremendous amount of variety among the modern aircraft featured at today's airfields. It's really not that bad, folks.

^This. A thousand times this!

Besides, I sorta like being among the (compared to the general populace) few people educated enough to tell a 77W from an A35K, or a 788 from a 764ER.

I go for the technology more than the looks now.

I mean, that blue and white wavy liveried plane of TUI is made from carbon and not metal. Wow...it's closer to coal than the soda can in my hand!

Those engines that sound like a siren when it goes overhead put out 115,000 pounds of thrust each. That PIA plane flew Hong Kong to London the wrong way nonstop...

if you just want to be distracted by livery or other baubles, that's great for you. Personally I would go to photograph that plane with the swing nose or the huge airlifter that moves full aircraft sections about. I've got my interests in freighters and engines to keep me warm at night...

LAX772LR wrote:

Never was a fan of the Hunchback of Puget Sound, and will never in a trillion years understand why it's maintained the cult of personality that it has among AvGeeks... but all that aside, at least Boeing has finally come to grips with reality.

Boeing finally conceded publicly Tuesday that while the all-cargo model of its 747 jumbo jet will continue to sell, the longtime “Queen of the Skies” has no future as a passenger plane.

http://www.seattletimes.com/business/bo ... ger-plane/

I get that the model popular for what it once did for aviation.... four decades ago. But now it's just an obsolete relic of a bygone era; I can't believe it's taken them this long to see what just about everyone else has already long-since known.

Most disrespectful post; no need to inflame the sensibilities of the many who adore the 747. Everyone admits it's going away finally so why stick a knife into the wound and twist it? This was a truly revolutionary aircraft in its day so your lack of appreciation for its legacy is both shocking and sad. Even though it has been superceded by newer and far more efficient designs, it remains an iconic airplane for not only its distinctive appearance but for how it changed commercial aviation when it was launched, bringing more affordable air travel to the masses via its economies of then unprecedented scale. Yes, clearly you DON'T get it so I'll not waste any more time explaining why you just stuck your foot in your mouth. Who in this forum, for example, would attack the majestic Concorde as an eyesore, even though it was a spectacularly inefficient aircraft by modern standards? Guess you really started this thread to yank our chains, didn't you?

The last time I flew on a 747 it was on an AC flight (876 I believe) FRA-YYZ. Not only did I snag an upstairs J seat, I was in the flight deck for landing. (pre-9/11) Awesome experience and a fond memory.

Amazing how a few idiots on this forum has an anti pax experience agenda, and seem to thrive in just trying to destroy any notion of flying in comfort or anything that remotely resembles an experience. I've already blocked you a million times over, yet you keep appearing there by way of nonsensical, pessimistic, and evil posts? Why?... If you hate aviation and all that it stands for, why are you here?

Anyway, no airplane manufacturer is going to admit that its "airplane(s) have no future". Simply evil-doers wishful thinking.

mariner wrote:

I read the surprising numbers of posters telling this is "sad" - yet no one explains why it is especially sad.

Don't any of you blokes believe in progress?

mariner

These aren't mutually exclusive positions. I believe in and support progress. That progress leads to less 747s in the sky, which makes me (slightly, not depressed and curled into a ball) sad. Both can be true.

As a lover of the 747, these are hard times to asume that this remarkable model is seeing it's last days of producion. But I got to be honest to myself, as the producion days of the DC-3, DC-6, 707, 727 and 757 came to an end, well... the 747 now it's on the same stage. I'll be forever in love for this "obsolete", "thirsty", and "strange looking" aircraft that has a very important space in aviation history.

Channex757 wrote:

Always annoys me when people call it the "Queen of the skies".

The original Queen of the Skies was the Vickers VC-10 family. That got the nickname first; the 747 just stole it.

Boeing did not bestow the name upon itself, a media outlet did so if my memory serves. In the same way, super jumbo was given by the media to the 747's successor, the A380. This is unusual in that most of the nicknames given to commercial aircraft come not from the media but aircrew slang - some of which can get fairly pejorative. ( :

History has a few more queens for us and I do not denigrate in any way the fine machine that was the Iron Duck. Compared to the VC-10 or 747, there was a far more consequential queen of the skies: the B-17 Flying Fortress as she was known to aircrews. Before that, we have Amelia Earhart, although skies in her case, was singular. Cheers!

YOUR QUESTION:

Gasman wrote:

Concorde for its (and I quote) "efficiency, modernity, and above all else: CAPABILITY"?? Seriously??

MY STATEMENT:

LAX772LR wrote:

Concorde for its speed

I'll leave it up to you to figure out the difference.


If you need a reference, scroll up to this statement as a supplement:

LAX772LR wrote:

Concorde... and that's not even a plane anymore, just a museum piece.

dmstorm22 wrote:

JannEejit wrote:

Thirty six years after taking my first jetliner flight, I've yet to fly aboard 747 of any type. I need to rectify that situation soon, even if I just go somewhere and come straight back again !

What are BA's plans in regards to the B744? They still use a lot of them for JFK-LHR, and given the near shuttle nature of that route it would be tough to switch out given how J heavy those configs are on B744.

That route may have B744 service for quite a while.

As a whole JFK has 3x 748i as well from CA, LH, KE. But the B744 is reduced to just BA and LY now I believe.

The B77W has the same seat count as the B744. That or the B78J (where the B77W's range isn't needed) will replace the B744s of BA. Also, don't forget KL for the B744...owned units will be flown until they time out.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Well, to some, mergers are progress, but you'd likely ask why we'd want to see less carriers? I'd agree. As with that, why do we want to see less four-holers? The reality is that most of us get it - it's over - but we will still miss this airliner. Doesn't mean I don't enjoy seeing the 787/A350s out there.

I suppose I'm just wary of personifying a machine - it is just a machine.

And at the end of the day, the 747 - no matter how glamorous - was just another machine, another aircraft. It was not in any way revolutionary.

Concorde was revolutionary, or had the potential to be.

mariner

mariner wrote:

Concorde was revolutionary, or had the potential to be.

mariner

I agree 100%. While the 747 revolutionized air travel due to its unique size and unsurpassed range, the truly revolutionary commercial transport aircraft from that era was without a shadow of a doubt, Concorde.

Sonic booms, fuel prices, and the high cost of producing, operating, and maintaining those fabulous wonders of modern engineering, unfortunately, limited the development of a wider market, driven mainly by the mediocre needs of the bulk of the traveling public.

mariner wrote:

And at the end of the day, the 747 - no matter how glamorous - was just another machine, another aircraft. It was not in any way revolutionary.

I'm not sure I agree with you on that point, but perhaps it is because we're thinking of the term revolutionary in different ways. The advent of the jet age revolutionised air travel, making it more accessible and reliable than ever before. The 747 and the widebody era it ushered in took things to the next level, making long haul air travel more accessible than it could have been with lower capacity aircraft. The 747 in my mind is synonymous with the travel revolution of the last quarter of the 20th century. As far as I understand it, it the 707 and DC-8 may have mortally wounded the ocean liner industry, but it was the 747 that definitively put an end to it. It wasn't as big a technological revolution as the Comet was over the Constellation, or the Concorde over the 707, but in terms of its impact in global travel patterns I'm comfortable with the word revolutionary.

All good things come to an end, and I think since the arrival of long haul twins from the 1980s and their evolution and development since, it has been inevitable that the 747 would eventually be on the way out. As I said up thread, so too will go every other aircraft type which people get passionate about, at some stage in the future.

O/T I stayed in Tutukaka a couple of weeks ago which I seem to recall being your neck of the woods. Nice place!

V/F

Keith2004 wrote:

georgiaame wrote:

Until you've flown upstairs in a Delta 747 to Asia, you haven't lived.

I did DTW-NRT and PVG - DTW upstairs last month...I don't know how I will ever beat a flight experience like that one
Queue "Don't be sad its over be glad it happened."

Pilots let me sit in cockpit for pitures and handed out 3D cards to everyone in upper deck, felt like a private jet!...makes you almost forget there are 300+ people down below

I wonder why nobody else ever did J class 1-1 upstairs, felt more first class than business.

It's wasting too much space to go 1-1 upstairs on 747 and that''s why no one is taking in.

I personally hate 747 upstairs as it gives a very bad view to what's going on outside the aircraft. I personally would prefer 747's nose section as it's far quieter (you can hardly hear from engines durnig takeoff run!). But that may be just me.

dmstorm22 wrote:

What are BA's plans in regards to the B744? They still use a lot of them for JFK-LHR, and given the near shuttle nature of that route it would be tough to switch out given how J heavy those configs are on B744.

That route may have B744 service for quite a while.

As a whole JFK has 3x 748i as well from CA, LH, KE. But the B744 is reduced to just BA and LY now I believe.

BA have 36 744s left in the operational fleet, split into two subfleets. One subfleet of 18 planes has been refreshed internally and now boasts 80 business class seats. These should survive until after 2021. The other subfleet of 18 didn't get the refresh or the extra business class seats, and will be replaced by 18 A350-1000s due for delivery at a fairly slow rate up to 2021. Both subfleets are used on JFK services, there are more rotations on the refreshed birds.

The fate of the last 18 depends on market conditions. There's an order for 12 787-10s due between 2019 and 2021. If times are hard, these will replace some 744s, if times are good they'll be used for expansion, and some of parent company IAG's sizeable stock of A350 series options will be converted to orders for BA as the replacements for the last 744s.

VirginFlyer wrote:

I'm not sure I agree with you on that point, but perhaps it is because we're thinking of the term revolutionary in different ways.

For my money, the revolution was the functioning passenger jet, the 707, with the 747 as a (fairly spectacular) evolution of that concept. You say it yourself:

The advent of the jet age revolutionised air travel, making it more accessible and reliable than ever before.

It was the 707 eventually in tandem the DC8 which opened up the world, the 747 was just a whole lot more.

VirginFlyer wrote:

O/T I stayed in Tutukaka a couple of weeks ago which I seem to recall being your neck of the woods. Nice place!

V/F

mariner

But it was a a lot lot more. In capacity in range and also in efficiency. The widebodies that came after the early jets must be seen as another revolution. I am not saying 747 only because DC-10 and TriStar are closer in their design DNA to current widebody twins than the 747.

The B747 was, is the Queen of the skies and always will be.

I've been on several 747s just in the last 24 months: Lufthansa, Delta, El Al. But my most memorable (and luxurious, in hindsight) were the TWA 747s back in the 1970s/80s.

I've read many articles in AWST where Boeing officials admitted that the 747 wasn't commercially viable anymore. But they said Boeing would kill it with the 777; they weren't going to let Airbus kill off the 747. And that's pretty much what's happened. The 777 has ended the 747, not the 380, which is in life support itself.

Its a great airplane, for what it did for commercial aviation, for how the plane looks and flys, to how the plane ride is as a passenger. I have not had many 747 flights, but I am thankful to have a few. VS 744 BA 744 IB 743 and my favorite 747 flight HKG-NRT on a CX 744 on the upper deck. It's such a great piece of technology and it really is IMO the best looking airliner out there. Don't get me wrong the 77W and A350 are great airplanes, but there is just something special about the 747.

I too hope there is enough demand for a 748. I would think there will be. Many of the cargo fleets are filled with 747-400s, those same cargo fleets used to be filled with 747-100/200/300 aircraft. At some point the 744 will be past its age and something needs to replace the 744F. Sure it could be a 777F but hopefully the 748 will continue to be the replacement. So while the passenger terminals won't have many 747-400s or 748i at the gates, with more and more 747-400 retiring. I still see long life in the cargo world for the Queen.

The 747 is an iconic plane, and a stunning one (albeit not as attractive as Concorde or the VC10 ). It's one of the few planes the layman still can recognise

As a passenger sitting in the back, it never felt especially special to me. Better than the horrid 10Y 777 configuration,but the extra space (currently) of the A380 is really notable, while the smaller 767/A330 are pleasanter experiences.

ty97 wrote:

No surprise at this news, but I can be sad about it anyway.

At least we'll be able to enjoy the final 748I's living on in Air Force One liveries
for another 20-30 years or so

If this discussion here is about revolutionary planes, that means decisively changed aircraft design, than nobody should by pass the A300 in regards to opening the area of the big twin.

If we look at controls on mass produced aircraft, the A320 brought fly by wire to commercial aeroplanes.

The 747 brought long haul mass transport.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

dmstorm22 wrote:

JannEejit wrote:

Thirty six years after taking my first jetliner flight, I've yet to fly aboard 747 of any type. I need to rectify that situation soon, even if I just go somewhere and come straight back again !

What are BA's plans in regards to the B744? They still use a lot of them for JFK-LHR, and given the near shuttle nature of that route it would be tough to switch out given how J heavy those configs are on B744.

That route may have B744 service for quite a while.

As a whole JFK has 3x 748i as well from CA, LH, KE. But the B744 is reduced to just BA and LY now I believe.

The B77W has the same seat count as the B744. That or the B78J (where the B77W's range isn't needed) will replace the B744s of BA. Also, don't forget KL for the B744...owned units will be flown until they time out.

77W has same seat count, but 744 has far higher J which is important for NYC-LON.

Forgot about KL

mariner wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Well, to some, mergers are progress, but you'd likely ask why we'd want to see less carriers? I'd agree. As with that, why do we want to see less four-holers? The reality is that most of us get it - it's over - but we will still miss this airliner. Doesn't mean I don't enjoy seeing the 787/A350s out there.

I suppose I'm just wary of personifying a machine - it is just a machine.

And at the end of the day, the 747 - no matter how glamorous - was just another machine, another aircraft. It was not in any way revolutionary.

Concorde was revolutionary, or had the potential to be.

mariner

Fair enough. I've never been a big Concorde fan though I appreciate it's long legs when on the ground. For me, it's simply that the 747 reminds me of days gone by - childhood and all that I suppose - and it's lines are unique. Whether it was evolutionary, revolutionary, or just more of what already was doesn't really matter to me personally, but our cranks all turn differently I suppose.

mjoelnir wrote:

If this discussion here is about revolutionary planes, that means decisively changed aircraft design, than nobody should by pass the A300 in regards to opening the area of the big twin.

If we look at controls on mass produced aircraft, the A320 brought fly by wire to commercial aeroplanes.

The 747 brought long haul mass transport.

Actually the thread was about the demise of the 747. I agree that both the A300 and A320 deserve accolades for what they brought to the marketplace, but I don't really think it's relevant here.

How could anyone be surprised, this isn't even news. When it was first introduced Boeing said the pax version was a stop gap to something else. It's continued success was not planned and not completely expected. At the time i think SST was the goal not a 50 year 747 passenger version run.

Max Q wrote:

The B747 was, is the Queen of the skies and always will be.

In the 45-plus years of their being in service, in Britain I've never heard anyone refer to the 747 as the 'Queen of the Skies'. Is this more a term that is popular in the USA? Amongst people interested in aviation, they've usually just been called 747s, although occasionally I've heard people rather disparagingly refer to them 'Lumps' (rather like the A380s being called 'Whales' or 'Fatties', or 737s being called 'Piglets'). In the popular press and on the telly, 747s were usually called 'Jumbos'.

Someone earlier wrote that the Vickers VC10 was also called the 'Queen of the Skies', at least until the 747 arrived. Again, I've never heard anyone in Britain refer to them as that, they were always just VC10s, and I can't recall that they ever had a nick-name. Perhaps it was an advertising jingle by the manufacturer or by BOAC.

deltadc9 wrote:

When it was first introduced Boeing said the pax version was a stop gap to something else.

Certainly don't recall them doing that. Source?

LAX772LR wrote:

deltadc9 wrote:

When it was first introduced Boeing said the pax version was a stop gap to something else.

Certainly don't recall them doing that. Source?

It's worth noting that the first 25 or so 741s were assembled with the nose door frame built in. This was not a design accident or the type of engineering consolidation that gave us A330s with additional hard points. It was assumed that they'd be quickly converted to freighters as the blue chip airlines moved on to SSTs. This is covered in Joe Sutter's book, 747: Creating the World's First Jumbo Jet. It's a pretty good read.

mariner wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Well, to some, mergers are progress, but you'd likely ask why we'd want to see less carriers? I'd agree. As with that, why do we want to see less four-holers? The reality is that most of us get it - it's over - but we will still miss this airliner. Doesn't mean I don't enjoy seeing the 787/A350s out there.

I suppose I'm just wary of personifying a machine - it is just a machine.

And at the end of the day, the 747 - no matter how glamorous - was just another machine, another aircraft. It was not in any way revolutionary.

Concorde was revolutionary, or had the potential to be.

mariner

Concorde was revolutionary, except for the fact there was no revolution. So it wasn't revolutionary at all. Saying it had the "potential" to be revolutionary is like saying the A340-600 had the potential to be a top seller. Nor was the Concorde even "evolutionary". Aviation today would be in exactly the same place if it had never existed. I totally get why people have an emotional connection to it but to try and say the Concorde was a success by any rational criteria is to draw a long bow indeed.

Now granted, many people here have a strong emotional connection with the 747 also. But putting that aside, as the first widebody VLA there is no denying it was a commercial success, transported many millions of passengers around the world over a forty year period, had range that could only be dreamed about previously, a level of interior comfort that is arguably only matched today by the A380, and opened up intercontinental travel to the masses. I'd call that revolutionary.

AvObserver wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Never was a fan of the Hunchback of Puget Sound, and will never in a trillion years understand why it's maintained the cult of personality that it has among AvGeeks... but all that aside, at least Boeing has finally come to grips with reality.

Boeing finally conceded publicly Tuesday that while the all-cargo model of its 747 jumbo jet will continue to sell, the longtime “Queen of the Skies” has no future as a passenger plane.

http://www.seattletimes.com/business/bo ... ger-plane/

I get that the model popular for what it once did for aviation.... four decades ago. But now it's just an obsolete relic of a bygone era; I can't believe it's taken them this long to see what just about everyone else has already long-since known.

Most disrespectful post; no need to inflame the sensibilities of the many who adore the 747. Everyone admits it's going away finally so why stick a knife into the wound and twist it? This was a truly revolutionary aircraft in its day so your lack of appreciation for its legacy is both shocking and sad. Even though it has been superceded by newer and far more efficient designs, it remains an iconic airplane for not only its distinctive appearance but for how it changed commercial aviation when it was launched, bringing more affordable air travel to the masses via its economies of then unprecedented scale. Yes, clearly you DON'T get it so I'll not waste any more time explaining why you just stuck your foot in your mouth. Who in this forum, for example, would attack the majestic Concorde as an eyesore, even though it was a spectacularly inefficient aircraft by modern standards? Guess you really started this thread to yank our chains, didn't you?

He has a right to express an opinion without you flaming him. If someone doesn't like the looks of the 747, it's his right to state it.

I agree that I hate to see the continued lack of variety in looks of both airplanes and train locomotives. However, railroads and airlines are in business to operate the most efficient machines. If all current and future airplanes look similar, then that's life.

Boeing has recorded the cancellation of the remaining three 747-8's on order by Transaero, bringing the order book for the model officially to 0.

I expect the VC-25 replacement to now be funded in Fiscal Year 2019 to finish out the model.

People talk about the 747 like it was one type:
-100 - Bit of a dog in reality early on, until the engines obtained a level of reliability (that would today be considered hopeless)
-200 - Capable mid/long range hauler
-300 - Half baked attempt at a -400
- SP - Wow; but niche
-400 - Pinnacle of 747 evolution. THE aircraft that facilitated mass long haul cheap air travel
-800 - Did I mention dog?

Even within these types one could go further with the type B's, Japanese D's, the -400 Lites and ER's....but that would be getting silly

shankly wrote:

People talk about the 747 like it was one type:
-100 - Bit of a dog in reality, until the engines obtained a level of reliability (that would be considered hopeless today)
-200 - Capable mid/long range hauler
-300 - Half baked attempt at a -400
- SP - Wow; but niche
-400 - Pinnacle of 747 evolution. THE aircraft that facilitated mass long haul cheap air travel
-800 - Did I mention dog?

I'd don't know if I would label the -800 as a dog, but rather too little too late.

shankly wrote:

People talk about the 747 like it was one type:
-100 - Bit of a dog in reality, until the engines obtained a level of reliability (that would be considered hopeless today)
-200 - Capable mid/long range hauler
-300 - Half baked attempt at a -400
- SP - Wow; but niche
-400 - Pinnacle of 747 evolution. THE aircraft that facilitated mass long haul cheap air travel
-800 - Did I mention dog?

You forgot the SR.

shankly wrote:

People talk about the 747 like it was one type:
-100 - Bit of a dog in reality early on, until the engines obtained a level of reliability (that would today be considered hopeless)
-200 - Capable mid/long range hauler
-300 - Half baked attempt at a -400
- SP - Wow; but niche
-400 - Pinnacle of 747 evolution. THE aircraft that facilitated mass long haul cheap air travel
-800 - Did I mention dog?

Even within these types one could go further with the type B's, Japanese D's, the -400 Lites and ER's....but that would be getting silly

The -8 is a dog? How so? It performs well for LH.

Never will forget the first time I saw a 747 in the flesh. I had taken the DL/PA interchange flight from IAD to LHR in early 1970. We were being bussed backed to the DC-8 and I looked over to see the PA 747. I thought that's not so big...The I saw our DC-8 sitting in the shadow of the 747. The '8 was tiny in comparison. I think that's the amazing thing about the original, it was huge, but didn't look overwhelming until you got close. It didn't seem out of proportion or bloated. The A380 looks like it needs a large dose of Lasix to get rid of the puffiness. Sadly, I never had the opportunity to fly on the Queen of the Skies, so I will most likely never have the chance.

I consider the 747-400 to be my favorite aircraft, but I fully recognize that its heyday has passed. The economics simply aren't favorable anymore, and only BA has really made an effort to keep them around due to LHR being slot-constricted.

dmstorm22 wrote:

What are BA's plans in regards to the B744? They still use a lot of them for JFK-LHR, and given the near shuttle nature of that route it would be tough to switch out given how J heavy those configs are on B744.

That route may have B744 service for quite a while.

As a whole JFK has 3x 748i as well from CA, LH, KE. But the B744 is reduced to just BA and LY now I believe.

I am a BOS homer, so I'm obviously biased, but thankfully, I think places like BOS, JFK, et al will continue to see BA 744s for a while for the reasons you mentioned. Even with BOS getting the A380 during the summer this year, I still anticipate seeing a mix of A380/744/772s on 3-4 daily flights rather than simply going to A380/77W/772/etc. but with more frequency.

LAX772LR wrote:

deltadc9 wrote:

When it was first introduced Boeing said the pax version was a stop gap to something else.

Certainly don't recall them doing that. Source?

Aside from spelling Concorde like Concord, MA, I think this is a fairly good article – one of many pieces that I've seen stating that the 747 was supposed to bridge the gap between early subsonic jets and supersonic jets like the 2707. It's not a primary source from Boeing, of course, but I find Popular Science to be relatively credible. http://www.popsci.com/boeing-could-stop ... jet#page-2

frigatebird wrote:

When airlines adopted 10 abreast Y for the 777-300ER, the 747-8i's niche market shrunk to just a very tiny piece of the market. When Boeing launched the 777-9, the market for the 747-8i disappeared completely. It will probably disappear from Boeing's website/pricelist soon.

I hope the freighter market will improve enough to enable Boeing a production rate of at least 12 per year, if not I don't think the 747-8F can be kept alive either.

The 747-8 really does not have a direct competitor in the freighter market with the outsize freight loading system. Boeing might not be building a lot of them but I'd BET they won't just abandon the airplane.

SunsetLimited wrote:

For me, no other plane screams "I'm getting ready to go on an grand trans oceanic adventure" like a 747. Not sure why. Just something I've felt since I first saw one. When I see one parked at the gate, with the huge nose pointed right at your and seeing the flight deck windows above, it just has this timeless, iconic, graceful look to it. Can't really explain further, but it resonates an emotional connection that I'm sure planes like Concorde and others have done for many others over the years.

I could not have said it better myself! That is the EXACT sentiment I feel EVERY time I see the iconic aircraft at a gate. I've been lucky to have flown on a 747-400 3x. Twice from DTW-AMS on Northwest and once on Delta from AMS-DTW. I am really tempted to fly on one to Asia this fall from DTW before they are forever withdrawn from US-based carriers. I can't understand why anybody would say anything disparaging about the queen haha. It is so iconic!

Keith2004 wrote:

georgiaame wrote:

Until you've flown upstairs in a Delta 747 to Asia, you haven't lived.

I did DTW-NRT and PVG - DTW upstairs last month...I don't know how I will ever beat a flight experience like that one
Queue "Don't be sad its over be glad it happened."

Pilots let me sit in cockpit for pitures and handed out 3D cards to everyone in upper deck, felt like a private jet!...makes you almost forget there are 300+ people down below

I wonder why nobody else ever did J class 1-1 upstairs, felt more first class than business.

NZ had J (Business Premier) in 1-1 configurationon the upper deck of the 744, until they retired the aircraft. They also had a 2-3 Premium Economy section in the rear of the upper deck.

I was lucky enough having flown on 63 B747s (11 742s, 3 743s, 47 744s and 2 748s) so far, and enjoyed each and every one of it. Last time was just last month on LH (YVR-FRA on the 744 in PE and FRA-HND on the 748 in J on the upper deck). Since I rarely have the opportunity to fly in J the 747 will always be my favourite long haul aircraft, followed by the A380. Having said that, the 767 and A330/340 are high up there as well, due to the 2-seaters at the window with most airlines.

It's really sad to hear that the Queen of the skies will be gone from the production line. I really enjoy flying on them. But let's enjoy the ones that will be flying for many years to come. That said....it is kinda strange, since John Leahy and others are saying that the passenger traffic is doubling every 15 years. Are we gonna see a "boom" in runway construction going forward? It will be exciting to see how these congested airports will be in... let's say 10 years from now?

zkeoj wrote:

Keith2004 wrote:

georgiaame wrote:

Until you've flown upstairs in a Delta 747 to Asia, you haven't lived.

I did DTW-NRT and PVG - DTW upstairs last month...I don't know how I will ever beat a flight experience like that one
Queue "Don't be sad its over be glad it happened."

Pilots let me sit in cockpit for pitures and handed out 3D cards to everyone in upper deck, felt like a private jet!...makes you almost forget there are 300+ people down below

I wonder why nobody else ever did J class 1-1 upstairs, felt more first class than business.

NZ had J (Business Premier) in 1-1 configurationon the upper deck of the 744, until they retired the aircraft. They also had a 2-3 Premium Economy section in the rear of the upper deck.

I was lucky enough having flown on 63 B747s (11 742s, 3 743s, 47 744s and 2 748s) so far, and enjoyed each and every one of it. Last time was just last month on LH (YVR-FRA on the 744 in PE and FRA-HND on the 748 in J on the upper deck). Since I rarely have the opportunity to fly in J the 747 will always be my favourite long haul aircraft, followed by the A380. Having said that, the 767 and A330/340 are high up there as well, due to the 2-seaters at the window with most airlines.

That's amazing!

Well Lufthansa, Korean Air, British Airways and Air China will be our saving graces going forward for 747 rides at least, I did my first 747-8 (IAD-FRA) last month and loved it. 747 remains my favorite long-haul also. Fortunately A-330 will be with us for a long time with its 2-seater windows

Morten42 wrote:

It's really sad to hear that the Queen of the skies will be gone from the production line. I really enjoy flying on them. But let's enjoy the ones that will be flying for many years to come. That said....it is kinda strange, since John Leahy and others are saying that the passenger traffic is doubling every 15 years. Are we gonna see a "boom" in runway construction going forward? It will be exciting to see how these congested airports will be in... let's say 10 years from now?

The average size of aircraft is growing, even if the largest aircraft are not selling.

I flew on the B747-400 a few days ago, it was great to be on the beauty again, before this I flew on her like 15 years ago, the chances are less in the future but one thing I understood is that B777-300ER is really a marvel, with just 2 engines, with so much better fuel economy and now with the 777X coming, I really don't see a future for the B747 and even the A380.

I hope they develop supersonic aircrafts

I suppose Boeing and Airbus would both be better off if the A380 hadn't been developed. Boeing could have kept the 747 going for another decade or two and Airbus could have saved a lot of wasted time and money. Not that the A380 isn't fascinating from an aviation geek's and a passenger's point of view.

Boeing now more or less confirms it is not offering the pax model anymore:

Boeing’s is now focusing on the non-airliner 747-8 variants as the decline in demand for very large airliners means an end for the passenger version.

“Of course that means we aren’t making passenger [747] airplanes any more. We’re just focusing on VIP operation and on freighters. We think the main passenger airplane [in the large sector] is going to be the 777-9.”

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... tu-445679/

georgiaame wrote:

Mark my words, and there is historic precedent, in about 15 years, there will be hewing and hawing about the need to reopen the 747 line because no other aircraft on the market can fit the flight profile. It's gonna happen. God rest the Queen. Until you've flown upstairs in a Delta 747 to Asia, you haven't lived.

I can't tell if you are joking lol but for those who really believe that, the 777-9 and A350-1000 will get the job done, both Airbus and Boeing are thinking about a stretch of those two aircraft.
If airlines need anything larger they'll go for the A380 but by then even the A380 will probably get killed by the newer 777 / A350.

LAX772LR wrote:

Ya know, I probably SHOULD'VE just asked this point-blank, sooner:

WHAT, IN YOUR (ANYONE'S) OPINION MAKES THE 747 "BEAUTIFUL?"

What say you all?

Nothing.Along with the A380, it's the ugliest passenger jetliner ever built. Thankfully, both are dying their slow death and Mighty Triple Seven is taking over, along with others!