While perusing this site I saw a photograph
of two Delta 744’s now retired



The accompanying narrative states in part ‘sad ending’


I don’t understand this statement, first, it is an inanimate object, secondly and far more
important it is not a sad ending at all



A sad ending is when the aircraft flies into the side of a mountain and everyone dies



Not parking an aircraft that has seen decades of safe and profitable service and will now be recycled back into the system



I’d say that’s the opposite of sad, rather
something for the manufacturer and airline
operator to take great satisfaction from

People get attached to inanimate objects if they have served some special purpose....a car is meant to be driven, a plane is meant to fly...not be stuck on the ground and left to basically be picked apart in the desert. I can completely see why this is labeled as being a sad end, but I can also see where you are coming from...it just depends on your point of view.

A sad ending in the fact that something you've known all your life has now pretty much come to an end and there is little or no hope of it ever being resurrected again. The 747 now is basically part of aviation history and a great time it was in commercial aviation when the skies were filled with birds of color like the 747, DC-10, L-1011, 737,727,707,DC8 and SC9 rather than this boring aviation landscape we have now with not livery creativity and where everything is basically white and most airports are dominated by one carrier rather than having diverse choice. Anyone who grew up with aviation in the 60s, 70s and 80s would understand why this is a sad end.

Max Q wrote:

I don’t understand this statement, first, it is an inanimate object

Since you seem to have been around quite a long time you may have noticed that many here talk about airplanes as if they were beautiful girls.

I am going to assume that the OP means the picture currently on the front page, that being

Buildings are inanimate objects but if an old beautiful building meets the wrecking ball, especially a building that holds fond memories (your first love had an apartment in it) then the feeling you have, the memories of good times, the knowledge that time passes and you are closer to the grim reaper, well, a lot of people consider that sad. People don't mourn inanimate objects per se, but rather the symbolism that the objects have.

Yeah it is kinda sad to see those two big beautiful birds rusting away in the desert. Soon that'll be me.

The saddest thing currently about this thread is the thread title. Can the OP or the moderators please make the title meaningful. "Sad ending - 2 DL 747s rotting away in the desert" as example

Max Q wrote:

While perusing this site I saw a photograph
of two Delta 744’s now retired



The accompanying narrative states in part ‘sad ending’


I don’t understand this statement, first, it is an inanimate object, secondly and far more
important it is not a sad ending at all



A sad ending is when the aircraft flies into the side of a mountain and everyone dies



Not parking an aircraft that has seen decades of safe and profitable service and will now be recycled back into the system



I’d say that’s the opposite of sad, rather
something for the manufacturer and airline
operator to take great satisfaction from

I agree with you that getting sad over this is irrational.

But is it really surprising? I mean, you know how people get emotional over the 747, the 'Queen of the Skies' etc... I doubt the A380 will ever be thought of similarly (this isn't a swipe at the A380, I love flying the A380, I'm just looking at the distribution of sentimentalism and extrapolating).

I mean I can see for some people why it is a sad ending even though I would tell them they probably should have another drink and relax. But the fact is, well, the 747 has an aesthetic elegance and also a romantic, glamorous feel. I guess that's part of cultural association since many associate the jet with a 'bygone era' where flying was a glamorous, sexy event (i.e. only the rich could afford the tickets). But let people fantasize I guess... Glamour exists for a reason. Its visual persuasion. Its about cultivating an aesthetic image of life as it could and should be, where everything is beautiful and heroic and effortless (and everyone takes TWA, guzzles twelve martinis and joins the Mile High Club on board). The 747 feeds into it (unlike the A380 which, despite being a great jet to fly inside, looks kind of like a manatee with down's syndrome).

But yes, the retiring of the 747s isn't REALLY sad. But I can see why for some people it would feel like the "end of a golden age" so to speak. Even if those feelings are silly if they're subjected to logical analysis.

A320FlyGuy wrote:

People get attached to inanimate objects if they have served some special purpose....a car is meant to be driven, a plane is meant to fly...not be stuck on the ground and left to basically be picked apart in the desert. I can completely see why this is labeled as being a sad end, but I can also see where you are coming from...it just depends on your point of view.

I've said a few times before that it is for many, a strange but wonderful characteristic of humans that our souls can get sooo attached to steel, rubber and glass (obviously in this case aluminum, composites and glass) as if it also had a soul. But it does.

I see the point of both sides, but I'm more on agreement to A320FlyGuy's response. I have to think that most would agree with this - if you were there in person staring at these amazing machines, to see them in there in thier current state would bring a strong moment of melancholy.

Long live the Queen!

sassiciai wrote:

The saddest thing currently about this thread is the thread title.

Another classic sassiciaical comment... but I fully agree. When I saw the thread title I thought it was about an accident or something similar...

I am somehow fascinated by stored airliners... I always try to catch one on my business trips but wasn’t very successful recently. Tried to get a picture of the Jetstar that is stored in front of the Garuda training center in Jakarta but didn’t manage to do so.

So yes, definitely not a sad ending.

I find it strange having to explain why people find it sad when an airliner goes to the desert to die.

An aircraft like a 747 or an A380 are incredibly complex machines, put together by thousands of parts, many of them moving. Thousands of people put their blood, sweat and tears into creating each aircraft. The complexity is so deep that every single aircraft that rolls off the line will be slightly different than the one before it. It has it's own quirks, it flies just a little bit differently than the next. Every aircraft is unique, and we give them unique names.

When an aircraft is scrapped, sitting still in the desert - it resembles a dying animal. The carcass of a 747 with it's wings drooping, it's ribs showing through open holes, doors missing.. it's like when nature reclaims a dead animal.

Most people will feel more sad when a 747 gets scrapped than a 737. There just aren't that many of them. There are limited numbers of each type.

Many people have fond memories of various planes, through their journeys and vacations. This is especially true for crew members and airline mechanics, who have spent large parts of their lives flying or maintaining these machines, each of them unique in some sense.

It would be very strange not feeling anything at all looking at these boneyard photos. They make me sad, that's for sure.

You know...Ever since my Dad took me to the observation deck at ORD back in the 60's, I've been in love with airplanes and aviation...Many on this website certainly understand how you get attached to an airplane, especially when you've worked them on a daily basis. An overly emotional reaction? Maybe, but my wife and kids understand. There is something SAD about seeing an aircraft you've been associated with for 20-25 years parked in the desert waiting to be broken up...

PC12Fan wrote:

A320FlyGuy wrote:

People get attached to inanimate objects if they have served some special purpose....a car is meant to be driven, a plane is meant to fly...not be stuck on the ground and left to basically be picked apart in the desert. I can completely see why this is labeled as being a sad end, but I can also see where you are coming from...it just depends on your point of view.

I've said a few times before that it is for many, a strange but wonderful characteristic of humans that our souls can get sooo attached to steel, rubber and glass (obviously in this case aluminum, composites and glass) as if it also had a soul. But it does.

I see the point of both sides, but I'm more on agreement to A320FlyGuy's response. I have to think that most would agree with this - if you were there in person staring at these amazing machines, to see them in there in thier current state would bring a strong moment of melancholy.

Long live the Queen!

I'll put it this way - my grandfather was the lead engineer who designed the Lockheed L-1011 TriStar. Before he died in 2012, we took a trip out to Victorville so he could see his "magnum opus" one last time - a sad smile crossed his face. He wasn't in the best shape, but he said to me how he was proud of the work that he did on the aircraft, knowing it carried millions of people all over the world, to the places, people and events that mattered. He was the first to admit "his" plane wasn't perfect, but I like to think he's looking down from that big airport lounge in the sky and would be proud to know that an at least one L-1011 has been saved.

I think we forget those Delta 744's are ex-NW 744's, among the very first 744's off the Boeing production line at PAE. As such, they are being retired anyway given they are over 25 years old.

For many of us, the 747 is special as it represented a massive quantum leap in commercial aircraft size and technology. For many, their first flight or commercial flight might have been on a 747. Improved versions of the 747 are still being made, albeit at very limited amounts, almost 50 years from the beginning of production. No doubt dozens will still be flying, almost exclusively as freighters and as AF1's likely for another 25 years. The reality is that fuel burn and mx of 4 engines, the development of larger and more reliable engines negating the need for more than 2 even on the longest ETOPS routes, more 'right sized' aircraft from Airbus and Boeing, tax laws, accounting rules, depreciation, that machines have a finite life of good use, means the slow end of planes like the 747. Some of us also care about the loss of other 4 engine ones like the DC-8 with almost none in ops today and A340 in phase out of in service due to practical and financial reasons. I am quite sure these 2 DL 747's have met financial and practical reality, likely have most of their hours and cycle times burned through, so time to end their useful life and be recycled.

Its like an car. You may love it, but a newer car may have better performance, fuel mileage, safety, comfort and gadgets, fit your needs better, less mx, the old one needs too much work to be financially and practically viable to continue to own.

Can not both feelings exist simultaneously? It is not mutually exclusive to state something like -

"A sad day but honorable ending for these 7474's"

It makes sense to me at least.

sassiciai wrote:

The saddest thing currently about this thread is the thread title. Can the OP or the moderators please make the title meaningful. "Sad ending - 2 DL 747s rotting away in the desert" as example

Completely agree.

'Sad ending' as opposed to a 'happy ending'? Did the 747s not reach full orgasm?

Well if you put it like that Stonehenge is just a pile of rocks, 9/11 is just a date and democracy is just a word. I mean I don't find the appeal in Stonehenge anyway, but I can get why some do. Same goes for a plane. Some people, who are given the title ''enthusiast'', like them. A lot. Like very much. Same goes for cars, boats, LEGO, etc.

barney captain wrote:

Can not both feelings exist simultaneously? It is not mutually exclusive to state something like -

"A sad day but honorable ending for these 7474's"

It makes sense to me at least.

Agreed! I was fortunate to visit VCV back in '03 when UA/DL 727s and various L1011s were lined up by the dozens. It broke my heart as these were the machines that played a vital role in what flying used to be. Although the aircraft we have now are much 'smarter', efficient, and statistically safer, i too feel the lack in variety and spice of what used to grace the skies.

The bond between man and machine is truly a marvelous feeling. A blessing to experience it and a curse when times change and machines wear out.

A happy ending for two 747s is not something we are allowed to talk about in this forum.

N14AZ wrote:

Another classic sassiciaical comment... but I fully agree.

sassiciaical?

StudiodeKadent wrote:

I mean I can see for some people why it is a sad ending even though I would tell them they probably should have another drink and relax. But the fact is, well, the 747 has an aesthetic elegance and also a romantic, glamorous feel. I guess that's part of cultural association since many associate the jet with a 'bygone era' where flying was a glamorous, sexy event (i.e. only the rich could afford the tickets). But let people fantasize I guess... Glamour exists for a reason. Its visual persuasion. Its about cultivating an aesthetic image of life as it could and should be, where everything is beautiful and heroic and effortless (and everyone takes TWA, guzzles twelve martinis and joins the Mile High Club on board). The 747 feeds into it (unlike the A380 which, despite being a great jet to fly inside, looks kind of like a manatee with down's syndrome).

Meh. I love the 747 but personally i never found it particularly beautiful or "glamorous". Quite the opposite in fact. It is just too beasty looking to be considered an elegant plane. Always thought its "Queen of the skies" nickname was a misnomer. Concorde was the real "Queen of the skies" as a far i am concerned. An engineering and aesthetic masterpiece that pushed the boundaries of speed, technology and luxury. A truly one-of-a kind jet. It was perhaps the last truly glamorous plane from the "Golden Age" of flying.

csavel wrote:

Buildings are inanimate objects but if an old beautiful building meets the wrecking ball, especially a building that holds fond memories (your first love had an apartment in it) then the feeling you have, the memories of good times, the knowledge that time passes and you are closer to the grim reaper, well, a lot of people consider that sad. People don't mourn inanimate objects per se, but rather the symbolism that the objects have.

Yeah it is kinda sad to see those two big beautiful birds rusting away in the desert. Soon that'll be me.

Are you going to be sent out to the desert ?!



Incidentally, aluminum does not rust

@Max Q, I hope not!!! At least not yet. But my point remains, it isn't the inanimate object itself but what it symbolizes to the person. Similar to how a national flag is in essence a piece of cloth but a lot of people will get very angry if you "desecrate" that piece of cloth.

PS That also gives me the wonderful idea of a retirement community in Arizona for avgeeks where your bungalow or condo or whatever is actually a plane taken out of service. Perhaps a section of Marana or Pinal. Shuffleboard between the 727 and the DC-9!

[photoid][/photoid]

KICT wrote:

This is a "sad ending":

nah, they hadn't even dynamited the tail fin off yet.

This is a "sad ending":

stlgph wrote:

hey, at least we still have Betty White

And you, Sir, win the Interweb for today.

From an enthusiast view It is unfortunate we now live in a world of two engine aircraft that look the same


The period from the ‘60s through the ‘90s was truly the most exciting, interesting and revolutionary in civil aviation and most aircraft had a distinctive configuration and appearance



The 787 and A350 are superb aircraft with incredible performance and efficiency but exciting ? Nah


The 707 was exciting, so was the 727, DC10 and L1011, not to mention the incredible Concorde



And the most significant aircraft of all time in my opinion, the magnificent 747 and I agree it is sad they are going away as a whole



I just don’t see ‘mourning’ individual airframes



And the freighter version will be with us for decades so all is not lost !

Is "exciting" then synonym for immature technology?

There is a Beechcraft which I frequently flew, a sweet bird, smooth, fast, well-sorted. Tragically, the plane crashed, with all aboard (4 people) killed. I did not know the pilot or pax, was told good things about them.

The plane? Just a machine, true, but one which took my family and me on many memorable adventures, and I admit to thinking "she" (the plane) had "died" before her time.

Too, I look at planes in the midst of being scrapped and think of the places it had been, the vacations that had started in it.

Those two sitting 744s are in full Delta livery? Should not... Cover it, that way photo will be less saddening to anyone.

Max Q wrote:

The 787 and A350 are superb aircraft with incredible performance and efficiency but exciting ? Nah

Are you not excited by the massive potential the 787 and the A350 are fulfilling? Or the new routes it has enabled, routes that were once thought unprofitable because all the existing aircraft types were either too big or too much of a gas-guzzler? What about its impressive range? Who would've thought decades ago that Australia and Britain would have a non-stop flight linking the two nations together? Or the fact that it uses much less fuel, which leads to lower fares and - more importantly - has a lower carbon footprint? Are you not excited by that?

idp5601 wrote:

Max Q wrote:

The 787 and A350 are superb aircraft with incredible performance and efficiency but exciting ? Nah

Are you not excited by the massive potential the 787 and the A350 are fulfilling? Or the new routes it has enabled, routes that were once thought unprofitable because all the existing aircraft types were either too big or too much of a gas-guzzler? What about its impressive range? Who would've thought decades ago that Australia and Britain would have a non-stop flight linking the two nations together? Or the fact that it uses much less fuel, which leads to lower fares and - more importantly - has a lower carbon footprint? Are you not excited by that?

I’m impressed with the performance and the technology that make for a safer and more efficient aircraft


It’s remarkable that because of that we’re
approaching a point where any two points
on earth can be connected with a non stop
flight



However I don’t find these aircraft to be that exciting, no, and certainly not visually



Nothing will ever come close to the uniqueness of those earlier designs, the mind boggling performance of the Concorde and the epic grandeur of the Boeing 747

In the photo referenced above, one of the two aircraft is really ancient (built in 1989), while the other one is rather new (built in 2002). AFAIK, the former has now been chopped up, while the latter theoretically still has some useful life left in it (although I don't know if DL is actively seeking takers for any of its 744s).

Max Q wrote:

idp5601 wrote:

Max Q wrote:

The 787 and A350 are superb aircraft with incredible performance and efficiency but exciting ? Nah

Are you not excited by the massive potential the 787 and the A350 are fulfilling? Or the new routes it has enabled, routes that were once thought unprofitable because all the existing aircraft types were either too big or too much of a gas-guzzler? What about its impressive range? Who would've thought decades ago that Australia and Britain would have a non-stop flight linking the two nations together? Or the fact that it uses much less fuel, which leads to lower fares and - more importantly - has a lower carbon footprint? Are you not excited by that?

I’m impressed with the performance and the technology that make for a safer and more efficient aircraft


It’s remarkable that because of that we’re
approaching a point where any two points
on earth can be connected with a non stop
flight



However I don’t find these aircraft to be that exciting, no, and certainly not visually



Nothing will ever come close to the uniqueness of those earlier designs, the mind boggling performance of the Concorde and the epic grandeur of the Boeing 747

Sure, no aircraft might match the aesthetic quality of the 747 or the Concorde - at least until we see a new passenger SST - but calling the A350/787 designs unexciting is not very accurate. They are elegantly-designed, beautiful looking aircraft (and I daresay one of the best-looking passenger jets on the market, private planes aside) and unique enough to stand out from the crowd of 777s, 767s, and A330s.

As a brand new Captain I took a 727 on it's last flight to be parted out. The airplane had gotten to the point where it was just a POS. I thought back on all the years it still soldiered on and completed all it's missions safely. I wasn't sad, honestly I was happy it was done flying. Blasphemous to some but I was in that thing all the time and knew the end was near.

I think some people get reminiscent about times they had been on them or spotted them. For me I sometimes think about NW DC-10's, I flew all over on those things and they were very comfortable. It felt like you were flying around in your family room. Then I think about all the FE's that are out there yearning to take to the sky again but all these damn two pilot airplanes took over. I do feel sad for them.

A320FlyGuy wrote:

...not be stuck on the ground and left to basically be picked apart in the desert.

Yet many multiple thousands have met such an end.