End of the line for the 747 (possibly)

[Marc]

I think the article title is a tad hyperbolic but it sounds like Boeing might be looking at the ending production of the 747.

The 747-8 isn't selling well and there are techincal difficults (which I admit I'm a bit suprised at given it's an evolution of the design rather than a new design) and economics (a 4 engine aircraft is more expsenisve to run)

http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/news/1360694/

No doubt it will still grace the skies for some years to come but how long for is anyone's guess. The 747-400s have now been in service for 26 years and are starting to head for the long term storage and the scrappers.

One thing from the article - the 747 grew out of a lost millitary contract which eventually went ot the C-5 Galaxy (which explains the deisgn of the forward fuselage as there would have been a set of doors there).

Long term is presents a problem for the U.S Air Force. The current Air Force One is 747-200 (iirc) and is due to replaced in the near future. It's replacement maybe on the last 747s off the line but then what?

Or possibly by the time the the next AF1 reaches 30 years of age it won't matter.

 

[publiusr]

Oh I hope this isn't the case. Like the Super-Connie or the Bear Bomber, this plane has style.

I for one despise the current domination of twin-jets ugly-ing up the skies.

 

[MacLeod]

I'm sure Airbus would be happy to sell the US a couple A380's to be used as Air Force One.

Sure some two engine planes have similar ranges to 4 engine planes, and might be better suited to some routes than a 4 engine plane. But 4 engine planes can generally carry more passangers. Airlines will generally pick the most cost effective plane for a partiuclar route.

 

[Marc]

I'm sure Airbus would be happy to sell the US a couple A380's to be used as Air Force One.

The shit storm would be something to behold

Sure some two engine planes have similar ranges to 4 engine planes, and might be better suited to some routes than a 4 engine plane. But 4 engine planes can generally carry more passangers. Airlines will generally pick the most cost effective plane for a partiuclar route.

To a certiain extend yes (though the 747 can't be matched for cargo capacity even in the the passenger version) but it's not always the big a factor.

And as you say that airlines will find the most suitable aircraft and that's why the 747 and even the A380 are starting to struggle with sales.

The passegner capacity of the 747 only matters if you have the bums on seats to fill them.

better a smaller aircraft at 80 or 90% than a larger one at 50%

 

[MacLeod]

One other factor which might impact choice of aircraft is the airport it will fly from, with some airports nearing capacity an Airline company might run a 4 engine plane in the peak travel months for that route and a two engine plane in the quieter off-peak months so as to keep the slots at the airport.

And of course there is then the small matter of what the customer expects as a passanger these days. I have different exptectations on a long haul flight than I do on a short haul flight.

 

[Marc]

One other factor which might impact choice of aircraft is the airport it will fly from, with some airports nearing capacity an Airline company might run a 4 engine plane in the peak travel months for that route and a two engine plane in the quieter off-peak months so as to keep the slots at the airport.

Unless it's an A380 I don't think in terms of airport slots it actually makes much difference between a twin and 4 engine aircraft unless it's load issue of 1 flight vs 2.

There are pretty much only 3 4-eingine aircraft models in service - the A380, the A340 (which are gradually being phased out) and the 747s.

And of course there is then the small matter of what the customer expects as a passanger these days. I have different exptectations on a long haul flight than I do on a short haul flight.

yeah not like being stuck on a 737 or an A319 for a 5 hour flight (makes me shudder).

Though I've never been on a 747 or A380. My long haul flights (between Australian and Canada) have involved 767s (yuck - old beatups), A340 (nice), 777 (nice - avoids having to stop in Hawaii).

I guess the A380s do allow the big bars and fancy feature Emirates have on theirs (if you can afford the price for the high spec tickets).

By the time I'm ready to do my next flight, Air Canada will have the 787s flying into Brisbane Australia.

 

[MacLeod]

I feel your pain about being stuck on a clapped out 767 on a long haul flight as I've been on one. I've also flown on 747s and an A380.

 

[arch101]

I believe the Air Force is seriously considering a Boeing proposal for the 777 to replace the twin VC-25s. Makes sense as miniaturization of equipment makes the Air Force 1 program fit into the (slightly) smaller but significantly more efficient design. You just needed a larger plane 25 years ago.
Funny how the idea was once bigger and bigger planes. Now, it's smaller and faster. With terrorism and shoulder-fired missile launchers and drones, I see the A380 as a deathtrap. I saw one coming out of Boston Logan last month (we don't get them regularly here yet)- thought it was a plane about to crash until I realized what it was and that it's sheer size made me think it was far lower than it was.

 

[N-121973]

Well, according to the article below, British Airways is the largest 747 user and for good economic reasons have no intention of scrapping theirs. And I for one am glad of that, the 'Jumbo Jet' is such a distinctive design with its hump-backed cockpit.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ment-on-hold-as-british-airways-extends-reign

 

[Mark_Nguyen]

It is a beautiful plane, but a notorious gas-guzzler by today's standards and with this economy, unfortunately 2-holers are the way to go. I last flew a 744 in 2008 to Japan, and for the first and only time on the upper deck. Fabulous piece of technology.

Now, with the 748 line potentially being shuttered (they're selling more cargo variants than passenger as it is), the likelihood of the VC-25 being replaced by a 777 is very high. The White House has SAID that they wanted a 748 variant, probably based on the redundancy of having four engines; but flying and maintaining the plane over its lifespan would make little financial sense if there are few spare parts around from counterpart airframes (blah blah DoD spending blah blah). So, a 777 may be the ultimate result.

On the inside, while it won't be as luxurious for the POTUS as the 747 (the private cabin is in the nose of the main deck, while every other AF1 has it behind the cockpit), a 777 will be wide enough to have private rooms with a corridor down one side. Likewise, all the military stuff that's on the upper deck of the VC-25 would fit snugly in a smaller room on the main deck of a 777, or even in the lower hold. It would easily work, it just wouldn't be as fancy-looking.

As it stands the VC-25 was hardly a top-of-the-line frame when it was introduced in 1986 (based on the 747-200, which was introduced in 1971 while the -400 followed quickly in 1989). To be fair though, it has -400 series engines and has been modified and strengthened so much it would likely put the average -400 to shame on performance alone, to say nothing of whatever secret defensive weapons it may be carrying. It also flies much more rarely than a typical commercial jet, so it will have far less wear and tear on the frame.

As for passenger variants... The new 777-X variants with their extended fuselage will be able to carry basically as many people as a 744, which essentially means a death knell for the 747. The aviation industry is also has a fickle 80/20 sort of rule, where most of the flight revenue comes from a small number of passengers in the upper classes. In short, if you can fill the premium seats (especially on long haul flights), it doesn't matter as much how many of us are in steerage compared to short, high density flights where most everyone can fly like a sardine for a couple hours.

As such, while the 747 can carry lots of people long distances, it won't matter to airlines looking to fill a smaller number of expensive seats and stuffing the rest with cheaper fares. The point of it all is that if they can do all this while spending less fuel on two higher-efficiency engines than four less-efficient ones, airlines will choose the former every time. And they are, which leaves both Boeing and Airbus in the position of having designed awesome, enormous planes that no one wants. Some airlines have even made a successful go at flying smaller planes in business-class-only configurations across the Atlantic which are more profitable than the equivalent flight with a bigger, emptier plane with economy seats...

In a few years we'll have a sky full of similar-looking tubes with two engines while the desert will be filled with inefficient, but beautiful, 4-hole planes that helped make air travel feel like something COOL. Sadness abounds.

Mark

 

[SuperSpaceMan]

From my understanding and all press accounts, the Airforce has already chosen the 747-800 for the next generation Airforce one... And with the 747-200 rapidly approaching end of life, I can't see them going back and adjusting now.....

 

[Mark_Nguyen]

Sure, and they also wanted 750 F-22s (got 187) and 1500 F-35As (got... Uh, some of them?).

I also read the stuff about the selection of the 748 for the next AF-1, although little news has been received since the announcement this January. I'm guessing they're off doing their planning and paperwork, and IMO I'm looking forward to it, but they've changed their minds midstream before...

I guess the next step is to look forward to the replacement of the backup planes, the smaller C-32 / Boeing 757 variants they use for shorter hops and as the VP plane. Those planes were in service from 1998, so won't be an issue for another decade at least, but I do wonder what they'd use. 787 is likely, but a new 737-9MAX could also fill the bill. Either way they can't use another 757, as Boeing closed that line over a decade ago.

Mark

 

[SuperSpaceMan]

Sure, and they also wanted 750 F-22s (got 187) and 1500 F-35As (got... Uh, some of them?).

I also read the stuff about the selection of the 748 for the next AF-1, although little news has been received since the announcement this January. I'm guessing they're off doing their planning and paperwork, and IMO I'm looking forward to it, but they've changed their minds midstream before...

I guess the next step is to look forward to the replacement of the backup planes, the smaller C-32 / Boeing 757 variants they use for shorter hops and as the VP plane. Those planes were in service from 1998, so won't be an issue for another decade at least, but I do wonder what they'd use. 787 is likely, but a new 737-9MAX could also fill the bill. Either way they can't use another 757, as Boeing closed that line over a decade ago.

Mark

You can't compare the acquisition of fighter jets to the Acquisition of the presidential transport... The Airforce isn't going to make a habit of flying the president over oceans in twin engine jets... And these things have to be ready by 2017... and making a jet into Airforce one isn't as simple as slapping the af1 livery on the outside....

 

[sojourner]

You're right. All it takes is for the President to board the plane for it to become Airforce One. No livery needed.

 

[SuperSpaceMan]

You're right. All it takes is for the President to board the plane for it to become Airforce One. No livery needed.

Not, just any plane, an Airforce plane... But that aside, a permanent replacement to the current aircraft is going to make months if not years of customizations once the Airforce takes possession of the aircraft.. And this program is already almost 5 years behind schedule.... My bet is the VC-25s are replaced by 747-800's and the c-32s are replaced with 787s