>>1618192is this the jew lazer that started the wild fires?
>>1618192go go go go go shorty
A clean 8F is so hot you oughta tag it porn.
>>1618218Dear god this is the sexiest thing I've ever seen fly.
>>1618240>>1618243autist humor is so bad
>>1618245>t. Pan Am Internet Defense Force
>>1618660Did two engines get gaan?
SP was the most proportional and aesthetically efficient
>>1618833Seems like the SP could work today with a two engine configuration.
>>1618859>Seems like the SP could work today with a two engine configuration.Not enough ground clearance for the largest turbofans.
>>1618192>>1618215>>1618217>DLR = Death Laser RayAlso, yes, the jew lasers
>>1618865Simply mount them overwing
>>1618859A380SP... the dream...
reminder that the 747-8i had interest from around a dozen airlines and expected 200-300 orders, but boeing's negotiating was so incompetent that they all went to airbus.
>>1619363>>1619364>>1619365>>1619366>>1619369>>1619375Five posts, five letters : WE GAAN
>>1618218Was not aware that Jeffery Epstein owned a 747
i really did like this livery. especially on the 744.
>>1619285Not really an accurate characterization of what happened. And the A380 has proved to be a massive failure anyway, so maybe Boeing at least partially dodged a bullet on this one.
>>1619470the 747-8i did not have the exorbitant development costs that the a380 had, and would have made much more money than the a380 anyways. BA, emirates, KLM and Quantas all originally planned on ordering them, but fell through. other airlines like DL possibly had interest as well but that one im not so sure on.
>>1619471Turkish Airlines was close to order the 747-8 too
>>1619494its amazing how badly Boeing fucked up with the 8i. its as if they handed the a380 its orders.
>>1619471>>1619633There literally was not a large market for the 748i. By the time it was entering service, the A380 had already proven that the market for jumbo quads was terrible and getting worse. The 787 and A350 (even the existing 773ERs) decimated the market for them. Boeing wasn't stupid to pull the plug on the 748i. It was arguably stupid to pull the plug on the 748F.
>>1619671the a350 and 787 came out after the a380 peaked in popularity, not during.
>>1618218Polished metal liveries are S-tier.
Isn't this the last year of the 747? I think they got the last order of dash 8's and that's it.
>>1621103excuse me this is a blue board
>>1621166No, its got 2 more years before backorders are filled
>>1618190>>1619467>>1620012Nice. Wish they kept that livery, and not the cigarette wrapper they scalped off of Continental’s corpse.
>>1621238what? you mean you don't like pornography?
the 747s had the best cockpits.
>>1621270>got 2 more years before backorders are filledSo yes
>>1618192In (unrequited) love with a girl named Sofia, God keeps sending me this image to rub it in my face.
>>1618663But they're not Pan Am Internet Defense (PAID), they do it for free.
>>1624229>flight engineers are gonesadness
>>1625697Anon asked if this was the last year, when the line still has 2 more years of production left.
>>1625858it looks so comfy.
>>1625858>ywn pump fuel around an airplane to move the CG back 8 or 9 feet for a perfect MAX CRUISE continuous climb to FL600
>>1626045FI still can't believe she's been gone 18 years, bros.
>>1626196I have been watching interviews with John Hutchinson, a BA pilot type rated on the Concorde. This was the first video I saw him in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bjzoh3iQJcI just found this interview a few weeks ago.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2gk_jetltYHe said after he retired, he was cross for 18 months because he couldn't fly it anymore.
>>1618218I didn't know 4 Chan had an airline
>>1626338Yeah I've watched both of those. Lucky chap he is.
>>1632588i think this jumbo is a little different. it might need to go on a diet.
Megatop flown by my godfather, Heathrow - Changi. Lucky me got to sit in first officer chair, mid flight, circa 1990.
>>1633330nice. kid me would kill to sit up front in a jumbo in flight.
My dream since I was a little kid was to fly on a 747. In all these years it has never happen. It probably won't.Sadman.jpg
>>1633885>born too late to catch a 747-100 across the Atlantic>born too early for the first suborbital plane>born just in time to see airplane design from all manufacturers converge into the same twin-engine scheme
>>1633885i will fly on this fucking thing even if i have to get the coof to do so
>>1633916Having a cocktail in the upper deck of a 3-window 747-100 on a reasonable-length 6-8 hour flight from JFK to London/Paris/Munich/etc is max comfy.Imagine our not-too-distant future of being crammed into narrow body A321XLR / future Boeing equivalent type aircraft for these kinds of trips. I had a transatlantic 757 flight in economy once and good lord was that claustrophobic enough.
>>1634375Aer Lingus Logan to Dublin route?
>>1634375Just don't be poor
>>1634838Have you seen what American did to first class on the 738/737 Max aircraft? Entire extra fucking row and paper thin seats. Just wait until that’s your “business class” on your climate-friendly max efficiency AirCucks A321XLRNeoGreen twinjet running on biofuels.
We have to go back
>>1635938>there is an alternate universe where ETOPS regulations never progressed past the 90s and jumbos still rule the skies
>Target is destroyed
post the insides of jumbos
>>1638847>budget airline based entirely out of 747sviolently based.
>>1639516yet not a single fatal accident, this is something that even most legacy airlines can boast. this is the power of the 747.
>>1632504>this is what they took from you
>>1632504>>1644206did they ever crash ?
>>1644216https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kai_Tak_Airport#Incidents_and_accidentshow hard is it to google
>>1644216funny enough, most of the accidents were on the runway, not with the giant fuck off buildings around them.
>>1644206pure, unadulterated kodak-powered kinographique
Somebody said transpolar flights?It is rumored that the development of the route was made by the argentina air foce. They took some Hercules with extra fuel tanks and tried the trip a couple times.A main concern was fuel freezing, sometimes the planes had to descend 10k feet for warmer airs or mix the tanks.
>>1644990Where did they fly to, New Zealand?
>>1644206Need more shots like this
>>1618192>>1618217sp a cute
i love the interior of the -400s.
>>1619432>>1618218All jokes aside did fucking Canadian Pacific own an airline because that looks a shit ton like their livery
ugh... what could have been.
>>1653293It is their airline. They also had a transatlantic maritime version of CP as well.
>>1659100Didn't know that they had one. Neat.
>>1661099I'm not implying this is the same plane. But apparently TAP had a couple of 747's for their african route before selling them to Pakistan. Eventually with TWA.
As of 4 weeks ago there are only 12 orders for 747.
>>1633330Soul livery, had a model like that as a child.
>>1664194All the business related to them going forward is going to be related to upkeep and conversion.
Wish they kept them :(
>>1618865I'm sure Boeing could add a system to counter the angle of attack produced by the new engines
>>1665942Wasn't the 737 max designed with engines that hung outward the way you are suggesting?
>>1666641>>1666642I mean, if you use just two Trent 1000s, remove the outer engines and flatten the bottom of the nacelle a bit, like the 737NG, you might be onto something. Providing you do it on the 747SP as I doubt two Trent 1000s could lift a full length 747.
>>1666810That would require a stupid amount of reengineering and a huge cost to produce a still uncompetitive aircraft.
>>1618190Why can't we just have the 747-500, bros?
>>1664194We made the last big beam for the jumbo earlier this year. Sad.
>>1679894The 747-700 should have been built
>>1661104Tower was based. All 747 economy airline.
>>1661104I genuinely believe that if TWA replaced even some of its ancient 747-100s with 747-400s when they had they chance, they might have made it.
>>1679894Boeing was pretty lame to can the 747X program
>>1679894feels bad man
>>1684803Engine go BRRRRRRRRRR
>>1619431That livery is teh sex
We need more LAX, Took this myself
>>1656995Blessed livery/aircraft combo
>>1688837based. i miss asiana's pax 747s
>>1664825Imagine the smell
>>1618190Am I crazy for wanting to take a weekend vacation where all I do is fly a 747?
>>1664825>>1692013Passenger capacity: 1,500. All economy, standing room only.
>>1692057No. Im trying to orient my vacation to Germany around that.
>>1694558>>1694558Flew once from GRU to LAX on a Varig 747... their cabin service was simply out of this world. Sad that company doesn't exist anymore
>>1694558>TAROM BAC 1-11 in the backgroundNoice
>>1686561Yeah another one bites the dust. Getting very rare.
>>1694894Deregulation and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race
Yep. Sad to see that the only metric their measuring is which one has the largest dollar value, factoring in inflation and rising living cost all of which could have been avoided. Its suddenly all green everywhere. Jumbo jets? 'why thats a STOOPID IDEA'
>>1695627its okay. narrow bodies for everything is unsustainable, so the inevitable crash will be cathartic.
>>1695636>be me>trying to book cross country flight>want to pay for first class as a gift to myself and my wife>all e-jets and 737s
>>1694959It wasn't deregulation that made these aircraft go extinct, it's basic economics. It's literally cheaper and more efficient to operate big twins. This isn't a hard concept.
>>1695745nobody tell him
Roses are red violets are bluejumbos have 4 enginesand 18 tyres too.
Airlines also lose money when their service is Trash like all those LCCs. 'Cheap tickets', crap seats and excess fees and wasted time at airports going through security.
>>1695826Tell him what? That's completely correct. You've made it clear you have zero understanding of how airlines work as a business.
>>1696378>he genuinely thinks regulations have zero impact on how airlines operate how i wish to be as naïve.
>>1695745>what is etops
>>1696503The same ETOPS that allows for wide twins to tranverse the oceans? The anon is right in that economics won out as well as turbine reliability.
>>1696519the turbines didnt win out, the regulation allowing ETOPS to be a thing did.
Every twin model built is smaller and narrower than a jumbo. The economics they argue about is the small plane vs the big one which is often older. Its not the same comparison, its airlines switching to the smaller one because they believe it gives them costs savings. A really smart airline would use the bigger jumbo and make a good business case for it, and can even make more profit using the jumbo vs another one using the smaller twin.
>>1697110>direct flights vs. hub-and-spoke>older, less efficient per seat mile wides vs. newer, extremely efficient narrows They are memes as old as time.
>>1697113I propose a compromise. Short wide cheap twins.If the 737 gets any longer it might as well be a 757. We need a return to form, something like a tamed and refined 747sp. Or just say fuck it and make a 767MAX.
>>1696406Are you brain damaged? Explain why an airline would use a plane that costs vastly more to operate than the alternative. The airline can literally make more profit from a more efficient plane. That's not a result of regulation.
>>1696573Quads continued to dominate the transoceanic markets well after ETOPS enabled twins to compete on those routes.
>>1697110This just isn't true in the vast majority of cases. The operating cost for airlines on a passenger-seat-mile basis is lower on an A350, 787, or 773 than on a 747, A380, or A340.
>>1697149>767MAXI think they might be working on such a thing.
>>1697185If they were it would be the only thing keeping me from writing them off completely as an aircraft manufacturer.
>>1697159only for a few years, ETOPS regulations hed an impact on how those routes operated. To deny that regulations have had impact on airlines is retarded
Airlines that operate old planes do so because they are cheaper to buy. In looking at a business case you have to consider everything. Purchase price and financing can sometimes outweigh the advantages of using a more economical plane. These numbers are not small when buying New planes. Sometimes that exercise of buying new is leveraged with other factors like branding, image and identity. An older less efficient plane can still make money, because it depends not on the plane but by how it is operated, financed and the price paid to buy them in the first place.
>>1697162Your fuel burn would depend largely on your all up weight. This reduces as the aircraft flies because fuel is being consumed. Shorter legs can have a significantly lower fuel burn because the all up weight is lower,and thus your initial fuel burn will be less. Its why some airlines put jumbos on short sectors, as long as their weight did not exceed certain figure for a particular sector, the Airline could still make money on that short sector. Contrast this with what is happening with twins, their loaded to their maximum capacity in both payload and fuel, and they fly long sectors. That twin will have more fuel burn which will gradually fall as the weight reduces. As long as Airlines keep packing tins of sardines, i think you can forget these seat mile costs.
Oh boy the the aviation YouTube retards are backFuck off and let us post about jumbos in peace
>tfw want to become a cargo pilot so I can fly the 747>tfw it will take years>I am already 33it's okay at least I got flight simulator ;_;
>>1698319I’m 31 and I know those feels. At least I’ve got a good story for the one time I got to ride on one.
>>1698319The cargo 747s are gonna be around for a while
>>1698327Well apparently we flew in one when I was a little kid and I even got to go into the cockpit! We are talking pre 9/11 here. Goddamn it I can't remember a thing except the pilot and being allowed to switch a button.. never been in one since. I think that's why I connect the 747 so much to the 90s. Did fly in the A380 4 years ago which was cool and smooth af but I want the 747.. Only a couple of days ago I was looking for flights in the 747 from Frankfurt to anywhere really. No luck. The only flight I found was to New York in a 777 or something and then the flight back in a 747. Costs something like 2500€.. if I didn't have a family and a mortgage I would have said fuck it but right now it's not feasible.
>>1698508That’s crazy how similar it is to my story. I remember being taken up to the cockpit but I don’t think I actually got inside because I remember everything else about it, going up the stairs and the second floor seating and all. My old man did a shitload of international travel during the 90s to the extent that for my 10th birthday in summer ‘00 he flew the three us BDL to SAN first class on only miles. We had a layover at ORD and our connecting flight on an a300 was cancelled. Next morning United offered us the same flight but coach seats or… first class on a 747 to LAX with a puddle jumper down to SAN. No brainer for me but would you believe I actually had to convince my parents? The flight was awesome though, the same flight attendant that gave me a tour of the plane told everyone it was my birthday during the pre-flight announcements. I got to sit in the seats right in front of the stairs, with the little coffee table. That’s where I learned I liked spinach salad and I remember being confused when I got handed a hot towel to freshen up on landing because I had never heard of such a thing. What I wouldn’t do to do that again.
>>1698522Biz class on the upperdeck is nearly d best. Esp on 12 hour transcon flights. But i found if you got good seat pitch (34in) you'll have plenty of legroom at the back in sardine class. All you need is extra pillows for the neck, and you can sleep thru meals for 8 hours. Try that today on the newer types.
>>1698712you know, despite the implementation of TSA and the early 2000s and late 90s really werent a bad time for flying. decent seats for all classes, decent service and lots of variety in aircraft, few ultra low cost scam airlines.
>>1697197Uh, it was more of a technology problem than anything. Twins with the range to cross the Atlantic, and certainly to cross the )acidic, had only just come into the market by the time ETOPs regulations came about. The regulations quickly followed the technology, they didn't prevent pre-existing technogy from being used.
>>1697188You mean other than the fact that they have the fastest and best selling aircraft model ever, the most population big twins, and a near total dominance of the freighter market?
>>1699077Boeing PR rep spotted
>>1699077Not a big 737 fan, especially not as of late. They dominate freight because 767s are cheap and great at what they do. Which brings me back to if they made a new engine variant and modernized the cabin a bit a 767max would be fantastic for a lot of domestic routes.
>>1699099Facts are facts you fucking retard. Airbus dominates single aisles now more than at any point in the history of the duopoly. Feel better now faggot?
>>1699100They own the freighter market top to bottom, large with existing 747s and 777s, medium with 767s, and small with 737s and the remaining 757s.
>>1699100Id wager that a lot of airlines would avoid that based on the fact that its a widebody. Which is funny, because the 757NG would have made a killing in that market.
>>1699102Dont you have a death contraption to fix, baljeet?
>>1621471Classy with just the right amount of filth
>>1699103So legacy aircraft and the 767 then.>>1699104I know it’s a pipe dream but I’m hoping short wide twins will gain popularity again for hub-hub traffic if someone made one that didn’t slurp fuel.
>>1699112Agreed. Point to point is lame.
>>1634375Me too, Berlin-Newark with Continental. Plane was alright, food was terrible though.
>>1699055I'm talking trascon/intercontinental flights not domestic (Sorry). Long range was still mostly jumbo on those flights. Had 777 but mostly A340/747/MD-11. After 9/11 the jumbo was still there, but after JAL went bankrupt, the jumbo never recovered. It was a slow death spiral from then on, with airline after airline going midsize or Whalejet. And thats when they started packing them in like sardines.
>>1698508Isn't this the one that crashed into the mountain in Japan. JA8119
>>1699446Id say that slow death started around 2008, what with the economic crisis that forced the merger of a ton of airlines
>>1699462Yea that too. It had nothing to do with the jumbo, that was to do with that subprime mortgage crises not anything to do with jets. LCC was already big before that. 2008 made it worse.
>>1699446I love how the airlines will preach social distancing up and down while continuing to shove dc-10 passenger counts into fucking narrow body regional jets. Hard to keep a “safe space” when your seat is 15” wide.
>>16994732008 and its subsequent financial crash seemed to do worse damage then 9/11. At least the downturn for 9/11 only lasted a year or two
>>1699477They are the gift that keeps on giving. What a bunch of clowns, responsible for their own downfall because of their crappy service, and trying to compete with LCCs. When you dress like a clown, act like a clown and laugh like one well you get the picture.
>>1699482Well I have heard that downturn being used to justify all sorts of things. In fact, if you follow the sentiment the USA would have had MORE tourists visiting it, because everyone condemned 9/11. I literally dunno what was going on there, and then 2002 happened, with the WMDs shit.
>>1699515who knows. maybe in another timeline point to point just never came about and jumbos still rule the skies.
>>1699592Really?? I suppose in another timeline I'm the richest man in the World.
>>1700173Direct flights make no economic sense. The entire market shifted to cater to vacationers who need muh nonstops for really no good reason. I would much rather dedicate a day for travel to my destination and route through hubs on jumbos in comfort than catch a 6 hour direct flight on a sardine tin and arrive irritable and sore.The only people with an argument for direct nonstops at all times of day are business travelers who can either wait at the airport for a layover because they’re on the clock or can charter/fly private if their time is worth that much.
>>1700178I think its when they got rid of 1st class on legacy airlines that really showed where their real interests were. Mostly 1st class was a leftover product from the early days. Most ppl could not afford it, the premium was steep, but if you were lucky enough 1st class was a dream. Nowadays its bizclass and premium economy. Some legacies dumped their 1st class, putting biz instead upfront. Their excuse was that 1st class was competing with bizjets. Not shure how true that was, but biz class and premium economy sound like watered down versions of yesterday product and 1st class on legacy today is extravagantly outlandish so as to prove that the 1st class product still exists. Either way there were real fans of yesterdays 1st class, that didn't have the showers, the extra privacy and all the other stuff, that if you really were a seasoned traveler you could definitely live without.
>>1700181THANK YOU. I simply don’t understand the 5star hotel first class experience. Who actually flies that way? Honestly it has no place in commercial travel, if you need those comforts that’s literally what private is for.First class should really be mostly the same experience as coach, with more space and best service/food. Business still gets the space but less luxury.
>>1700187Well if you have a beard, a toga and is named Al something that might be a problem. Frankly I have never flown 1st on a jumbo, i got biz class upperdeck, best flight ever, 2nd would be intercontinental with a stop in the ME for an hour. US 10 dollar sandwiches, stale dry and no pork.
>>1700178See, your fuckup is assuming a multihop flight on jumbos is more comfortable. It's objectively not.
>>1700224Maybe I’m just claustrophobic but anything over 2 hours in a 737/a320/whatever is just stuffy. I’d much rather 2 4 hour hops in at least a wide twin.I’m just a little too young to have experienced the peak of hub and spoke but I can’t even fathom how comfy it must have been to hop on a little feeder to a big airport, take a ride in some sky monster, and then another short jump to your final destination. I unironically wish I could book all my travel like that.
>>1700224Why the rude language dude. If thats what he likes, then all power to him. When I did multistop, i loved it. I got to walk around at an unfamiliar place for literally paying my ticket price. Free holiday at Airlines expense, just for an hour or so. You wont believe how many times I've 'been' to India.
>>1700224>objectively Nigga that's an opinion
>>1699517>>1700175>>1700215>>1700240>>1700255Thanks for contributing to the thread whilst two faggots are/were trying to sabotage it.
>>1618190The aerospace industry from the 50s until the late 70s was so advanced and ahead of it's time it insane. They developed shit like this plane, the SR-71, the Saturn V rocket, the X-15, etc.I know the reason is because of the Cold War but it's still impressive.
>>1700323>oh boy another thread of reposted google images without any sort of meaningful discussion
>>1700381>I have entered a thread about something that makes me mad, and now i am mad, how could this happen
>>1700358If you want to know how NUTS it was, check this out... WW2 ended 1945. Six years later (SIX YEARS LATER) the B-52 had already been built. By the time of the end of production, 744 units had been built over 18 years since 1951 and major production didn't begin until 1955. 9 years of production produced 744 units, and that is not a SMALL plane by any means.
pan am is so aesthetic why'd they have to go bros...
>>1700237Jesus fucking christ. Are you new here?
>>1702025Older than you, newfag
A man can dream
>>1702210The 747 fits Hawaiian like a glove. Wish they bought them.
>>1702182Obviously not you fucking cunt. You're on 4chan -- FUCKING 4CHAN! -- whining about bad language.
I didn't know that the JT9D on the jumbo had 2 different cowling types. Everyone knows the one with the sharp nozzle at the back, but there was another one that looked like the GE engine. Also that plane was a convertible? What an awesome airplane.
>>1702210Looks awesome bro, love it!!
>>1701988Man what a sad day that was. 520 dead and only 4 survivors. I wonder what that feels like, being one of 4 people out of 500+ that walked away. Must be surreal. RIP.
>>1702647That NW is a classic. Did you ever like the bowling shoe. I thought it was ok though.
/n/ unpopular opinions?I believe that once COVID is memoryholed, there will be a market for a double-deck trijet to fill the niche left by the 747 and A380. Boeing could even skip the engine development by just using 3 GE90's.Deleting an engine, by itself, will promise enormous savings. Emirates would jizz their pants over a plane like that.
>>1702964There is no niche for the 747 and A380, so nothing needs to be created for it to be filled.
>>1702964Jesus, imagine the proportions of a plane with a GE90 crammed into the tailfin
>>1702983>Jesus, imagine the proportions of a plane with a GE90 crammed into the tailfinIt would have to be an S-duct.
>>1702964I actually think that due to etops, a shortened 747-8 twin might be more likely, think a 747-8sp. However, the sp could only hold 331 people while the 777-9 can do 426, so it would have to beat that, which would probably need an even bigger variant of the 9x to power it. Which would also require a whole redesign of the wing due to the engine probably approaching 757 fuselage size at that point. I don't think airbus could do the same with the 380 though, it's just too reliant on hub and spoke.
The better solution would be to make a standard length 747 with the-8i aerodynamics and 744er fuel capacity and short upper deck. They can keep whatever tooling they have to build the shorter sections but wing would be the same as current -8i. My calculations show a range of excess of 16500 km suitable for high capacity LHR-SYD nonstop operation with seating for 380++ passengers. At least that is the theory. Extra weight savings will increase range, but in this universe will never happen.
>>1703009I was thinking a new clean-sheet 16 abreast (3-3-3 lower deck & 2-3-2 upper deck) Trijet design. The profile would be slightly smaller than the A380 at 18 abreast. It would use 3 GE90's, each modified with slightly reduced fan diameter so the #2 can fit in an S-duct at the back, while the #1 and #3 would be pretty much where you would expect them under the wing. It would be a conventional low wing design with a T-tail, to make access to the #2 easier and reduce possible hydraulic damage from a hypothetical catastrophic blowout from the #2.
>>1703000You could also use a V-tail and just have it sit between the fins.You'll need a ladder to get up there for maintenance though.
>>1703081>>1703083Its not thanksgiving yet.
>>1702964McDonnell Douglas should have been bailed out with the stipulation being that the management of the company is fired and replaced.
>>1703081>large trijets ever happening again
>>1703657I have an idea for an airline.First we invent a time machine, so we can travel back to 2001 and buy up all Delta’s l-1011s for a song instead of letting them rot in the desert. In the following years, use the money earned to buy up all the dc-10s and md-11s before the cargo companies. Develop a customer base flying solely hub to hub while it’s still profitable. Continue to grow and buy up bae-146s and dash-8s, now we have feeder service. Finally, buy up all the 747s domestic carriers eventually retire and make mad profits doing what everyone should have kept doing all along. McDonnell Douglas never dies, Lockheed comes back from the grave with some batshit awesome design, and Boeing releases a new series of jumbos instead of stretching the 737 like a 4:3 wallpaper on a 21:9 screen.Boom, I saved the industry.
>>1703683with what money
>>1703687shit stolen in future isn't being searched in past dumbass
>>1703657Can someone add the caption>If only you knew how bad things really are?
>>1703687Profits from inventing time travel
>>1702964>>1703081A GE90 is way to big to fit in an s-duct, even by shrinking the fan disc which would cut your fuel efficiency in half.
>>1702647Those engines look so puny on that wing.
>>1703822Saved, cheers mate
>>1703657Did PSA only have the one Tristar?
>>1704136They had an order in for several, but I’m pretty sure they only took delivery on one and only used it for less than a year.
>>1704153>>1704136>>1703822Go hawk your cheesy wares elsewhere. This is for 4 holers.
Hello fellow 747s, how do you do?
>>1704554i find it hilarious that the main reason for this things success and a good part of the reason for the 748s failure is Boeing's incompetency.
>>1704957well, relatively speaking.
>>1704978The A380 success story makes the Delorean look like the model fucking T.
>>1704953I dunno, their solutions are good, but their execution is not so good. Look at the MAX. if they can find a fix now, means a fix was possible, but they didn't do it that way. Aero dynamically, the MAX is a better plane, but executed poorly, soo poorly that people died. You could almost say the same with the 748. They just built on top of what was there, but never looked at the market, to see if that was what it wanted. Just straight up A380 competitor, not looking at the strengths and weaknesses of the jumbo and building the plane that should have been.
>>1705327When the 748 was first launching, it had intrest from several airlines, DL, BA, QF, and KLM being the most notable. Boeing expected tripple digit sales numbers from this, but when all of these airlines started negotiations for orders, they all dropped them and either didn't bother with replacing them or went with the a380. If not for Boeing then the 748 would be at worst in a spot Similar to the a380 where airlines have it too entrenched into their route network to get rid of or they cant justify getting rid of them based on the money they sunk into them. (And at risk of starting up the above conversation on whether or not these airlines would regret that purchase, i dont really care as i find this whole situation hilarious. It also wouldn't have been Boeings problem after they left the factory)
>>1705490They make Airlines buy on a conscientious basis based on GREEN values or what fits the business case best? Those should never be the priority. If I want to buy 10 jumbo jets. That is MY business. Boeing nor Triumph nor anyone including the President of the USA has no business telling me what I can or cannot buy. Yet Boeing it seems advises clients not to buy a product it makes and offers an alternative instead that fits its'GREEN' values and economic efficiency or whatever it is called. Is that how it works?? If this is what they are doing, then please shut down the 747 line and do themselves a favour by never selling another product with that name. Countless times I have read about good news on the horizon only to find it was a chimera in which a smaller 2 engined product was selected.
>>1705327>They just built on top of what was there, but never looked at the market, to see if that was what it wanted. Just straight up A380 competitor, not looking at the strengths and weaknesses of the jumbo and building the plane that should have been.The 747 is a freighter. There will be a market for passenger conversions.
>>1705610You and I know that will never happen. Its just not practical. The work involved will mean taking away a lot of structural strength in order to make it lighter for efficiency purposes and to restore its original range. Its easier to buy new, which will also come with warranties for defective manufacture.
>>1705604airlines choose what they choose based on what works with their network and whats most efficient. theoretically it would be more green to have fewer large aircraft than a fuck ton of smaller ones, but that not whats in vouge.
>>1704953>the 748s failureDelta was interested in buying itTurkish Airlines was interested in buying itBritish Airways could have bought itJapan (ANA and JAL) could have bought itIt hurts, it hurts to see how mismanaged Boeing is... all thanks to these rats from McDonnell Douglas
>>1705621I think you have seen that this not entirely true. The recent experience with the A380 is somewhat proof of that. You could also say that buying a 787 might not be in the best interest of the business. Alitalia and Norwegian come to mind. I'm not saying that they would have made money if they bought jumbos what I'm saying is even though the buy the best equipment, does not necessarily mean that they will be profitable. You can buy the best equipment, but mismanaged it and it WILL fail. Alternatively, you can buy less efficient jets, but manage it superbly and make tons of money. Just because you start out with the less than ideal conditions is not a barometer for success.
>>1705634delta could have been Lufthansa 2, American boogaloo sad.
>>1705635while the fuel savings from twinjets might not be saving any airlines, it certainly helps when youre successful. some airlines were able to make jumbos work for their route structure, but (albeit through no real fault of their fleet) are no longer around.
>>1705653Absolutely agreed. The success is what the Airline makes of it. Do jumbos fit in well? They might, but it not the fact that they do, or not, its what the airline does to find that success that determines it. I remember an airline called Kabo Air. It operated some of the most rotten 747s on the planet. Yet apparently I heard they made money. It appears that they targeted a certain market well enough to earn their reward. After winning, sold their jets for scrap and disappeared. I doubt they would have made money with eco friendly, brand new A350s or 787s. Their business model was go in low, sell at a good margin and get out of there.
>>1705655>It appears that they targeted a certain marketThat's the hajj for you : carrying pilgrims to Mecca has always been profitable for charter airlines.>I doubt they would have made money with eco friendly, brand new A350s or 787sAnd then you understand why a Peruvian cargo airline decided to reactivate a +50 years old DC-8 super 70 : compared to a brand new or a second hand cargo jet, the DC-8 is almost free to acquire, thus allowing you to do heaps of benefits
>>1705660This is exactly what I'm talking about. The business case was simple and had low costs attached to it. In these cases, so low that profits were literally guaranteed. The question really needs to be asked is, how much efficiency vs how much regulation to meet the compliance. Is it the case that regulations and compliance costs Airlines more money, thus forcing them to buy the latest equipment? Is it inflation? How much is that efficiency worth if at the end of the day all that revenue is taken away by compliance costs and financing costs? Passing this cost to the consumer only hurts the business in the long run. With higher prices and a progressively lower and lower product. Add to that the high cost of everything, Especially fuel and you can see why the jumbo is going away. But I have one question, couldn't Boeing have made a Business case for the parts of the program that was still alive, or just railroaded everybody to buying into accepting the idea that it is over? That is an answer to a question that seems impossible to find, as many times, i read and found that there was interest only to see that it suddenly and mysteriously evaporated.
The only time I have seen a 747 was when President Trump visited my country. I really want to fly on a 747 before it's too late.
Thoughts on Mr. Clean here?
>>1702964>>1703081Your description is very similar to the original pre-production design incarnation of the 777, albeit with two decks instead of one.
>>1702964If by unpopular you mean objectively and proveably wrong, then sure.
>>1706037Is the guy here the one with the Utube channel? He is ok. Doesn't do much. Just talks.
>>1706171If only making jets was like epic meal time. Mix and mash and giue and voila new jet pipes ala carbonfibre sauce.
>>1706037I subbed this guy. CX CPI for 747 I think. Dedicated professional. Has posters of the jumbo cockpit on his wall at home. Unsung Coof pandemic Hero.
>>1663930>CUNT-AS>strayan flag carriermakes sense
>>1655959if pan-am had stuck around, they'd have gone for pure white like every other cunt
bump limit reached, new thread when?