Comments
iamnotbillyjoel t1_izbidd4 wrote
i would not want to fly in the last 747
TheThebanProphet t1_izbiif0 wrote
Wow, I'm surprised. I thought they phased this out sooner.
Groove4Him t1_izbivdt wrote
The pictures are pretty sad as the last 747 ever rolls off the line... and nobody is even there. An inglorious end to a most glorious plane.
So long friend. You served us well.
Wedge38 t1_izbk0rj wrote
It's being used to carry freight cargo. They've been building them for air freight shipping for a while now. So no worries, unless you're a package, you'll be fine.
mishap1 t1_izbk1p5 wrote
Unless you’re a pallet of fresh flowers, I don’t think you’d be super comfortable in it.
squarepeg0000 t1_izbl5qx wrote
Me too. I thought we did the 747 homage several years ago.
PeanyButter t1_izblf6i wrote
Disregarding the fact that it's for freight, why?
lellololes t1_izblff0 wrote
Why? Do you think it isn't built to the same standards as the rest of them?
iamnotbillyjoel t1_izblj8x wrote
yes
see the data on which cars are lemons
lellololes t1_izbln24 wrote
Cars are not built to the same standards as aircraft. It's a totally different world.
Gloomy-Employment-72 t1_izblz4g wrote
There were a lot of folks there, just not in this shot. Many a picture and selfies galore. Trust me, a lot of folks wanted to see the last one.
iamnotbillyjoel t1_izbm0zd wrote
well that's obvious, yet unconvincing
thatsAgood1jay t1_izbmd2c wrote
For passenger planes yes, they kept building them for freight.
DamNamesTaken11 t1_izbn7he wrote
I remember the first time I ever saw a 747 when I was at JFK as a kid, I was amazed something that big could fly. Eventually, I did fly in one a few times, never on the upper deck but even still it was incredible having a seat near the nose of one of them.
Long live the Queen of the Skies!
lellololes t1_izbnfnp wrote
Would it make you feel better if you knew that the jet engines that power the 747-800 are from the series of engines that also powers the 787?
[deleted] t1_izbnkq2 wrote
[removed]
6Emptybottles t1_izbo8h1 wrote
The 747 SP from Newark to Tokyo made money for United back in the 80s and 90s by selling out the freight. The passenger tickets were outrageously expensive but freight paidthe bills.
[deleted] t1_izbp887 wrote
The use of the word "comfy" to describe an aircraft makes me chuckle for some reason xD
[deleted] t1_izbqhwo wrote
[removed]
Squattedtrucksarebad t1_izbqt4v wrote
I don't see the freighters getting phased out any time soon.
You'll definitely see a load of passenger carriers get scrapped, but cargo airlines will continue using them for another few decades due to the nose door so they can get big items in it. Some passenger carrying ones will probably get turned into freighters too.
Sort of how Nolinor still operates the 737-200 Combi with the gravel kit. It has features no or few other planes have.
vonvoltage t1_izbro6r wrote
The Queen of the Skies.
One the neatest things about the 747 is how fast it is because it has it's wings swept back so much.
OrangeJr36 t1_izbs3ir wrote
It won't be done flying just yet.
The freight conversions will keep flying as long as there are plentiful parts that can be pulled off of boneyard airframes for pennies.
Funny enough it will probably be EU Emissions regulations that ultimately do them in.
[deleted] t1_izbscnp wrote
[deleted]
Squattedtrucksarebad t1_izbshfy wrote
Just under 4% of the total amount of B747s have been involved in an accident that lead to a Hull loss. Some of which weren't even down to fault of the plane.
The 747-8 doesn't contributes to any of them as far as I'm aware.
Planes are built to a different standard to cars. Cars are mass produced. Planes aren't.
Yeetstation4 t1_izbteeq wrote
Kept going just long enough to dunk on the a380 lmao
[deleted] t1_izbu8xs wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_izbuolh wrote
yogorilla37 t1_izbv8na wrote
As kids (1981 I think) we had the flight attendants take us up to the lounge to play cards on a trans pacific flight, I recall big comfy chairs but no piano sadly.
SideburnSundays t1_izbvy2t wrote
He’s probably a pilot. They’re the only ones with decent seats.
Noahdl88 t1_izbwxxz wrote
You don't get close to 200,000 pounds of rolling airplane, OSHA wouldn't like it.
gopoohgo t1_izbylgq wrote
Korean Air 747-8's are still flying
AllAmericanSeaweed t1_izbzoqu wrote
I mean this means that the 747 still has another 10-30 years of life left.
The last plane was just built. 747s have a fairly long life, with the average operational age being 27 years.
Mountain_Offer1348 t1_izbzvhj wrote
So is Lufthansa
Kevgongiveit2ya t1_izc73ie wrote
A Korean buddy of mine I flight instructed with flys them for Korean air. Meanwhile I’m flying a crj… so jealous.
DJ_Moore_2 t1_izc8t25 wrote
I literally just took my first flight this past Friday, and took my second one today to get home. It was absolutely not comfy at all lmao. But I’m glad I finally got to fly after 37 years of never doing so.
Also, fuck airports.
[deleted] t1_izc8x41 wrote
bigwebs t1_izc9al1 wrote
They can be pretty disorienting and chaotic until you get a natural sense of how they work.
bigwebs t1_izc9ik4 wrote
A 747 is somewhere in the 450,000lb range empty.
DJ_Moore_2 t1_izc9ok8 wrote
I think I did alright for my first time, especially having layovers in decently sized airports and having to check a bag.
bigwebs t1_izc9pew wrote
Why not? The newest model has been significantly updated.
bigwebs t1_izc9w9g wrote
If you got to your gate on time, then you did good. Honestly, they’re so much better than they used to be.
iamnotbillyjoel t1_izca5bw wrote
so this is the last model of the newest 747?
do you have any stock tips for me??
[deleted] t1_izca7cd wrote
[removed]
bigwebs t1_izcaam4 wrote
Weird take, but ok.
DJ_Moore_2 t1_izcalou wrote
I had enough time to wait in a long ass Chick-Fil-A line in Dallas Forth Worth!
bigwebs t1_izcaqjx wrote
Yeah - going to the airport hungry is not a good time. Especially if you’re stuck buying from the food courts.
DJ_Moore_2 t1_izcb2sb wrote
Yeah I had some terrible chicken tenders in Wilmington before I left on my flight out to Arizona. And they were wicked expensive. But the Chick-Fil-A was only about a dollar more expensive than normal ones.
[deleted] t1_izccfkt wrote
[removed]
series_hybrid t1_izccq2x wrote
You didn't see any snakes, did you?
themightiestduck t1_izcflzl wrote
The USAF is currently converting two already-built 747s to serve as Air Force One. The current planes have been in service since 1990. If the new ones have the same lifespan, I wonder what will replace them in 2055. The trend is towards smaller planes… the Airbus A380 is already out of production.
Adderbane t1_izcgcri wrote
The last B-52 was built before the first 747 and they're projected to be in service for another 20-30 years.
[deleted] t1_izcgvpe wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_izchakd wrote
[removed]
p4177y t1_izchfwk wrote
> The 747 was probably the most profitable losing bid in history
Some additional context here:
Boeing developed the 747 after it lost out on a bid to build a large cargo plane for the Air Force in 1964. The winner of that competition, Lockheed, went on to build the C-5 Galaxy, of which only 131 were built in two phases, one in the late 60s-early 70s, and some more in the 80s.
Meanwhile, Boeing used a lot of that experience on that bid in the development of a passenger airliner, the 747, and ended up being produced for over 50 years, with over 1500 of the type being built.
Dysentery--Gary t1_izcjcnw wrote
So what is replacing the 747 for passenger travel?
[deleted] t1_izcjt9y wrote
[removed]
Caswell64 t1_izck4jz wrote
777 and 787. Neither are quite as large capacity as the 747, but using two jet engines (which the 777 and 787 do) rather than the 747’s four engines means the fuel savings are huge.
BeautifulType t1_izcl91e wrote
Or remembered the 90s when some 747s weren’t retrofitted for packing humans into a can of sardines
ericchen t1_izclxk2 wrote
The 90s were awful. They had middle seats that didn’t go flat, even in first class.
SideburnSundays t1_izcov80 wrote
The only positive about flying in the 90s was pre-9/11 security.
IBlazeMyOwnPath t1_izcqfxd wrote
Not to mention maintaining two fewer engines
V41K4R13 t1_izcr551 wrote
Very good point.
Iniquite t1_izcuy2v wrote
To clarify, they were built specifically to be Air Force One planes. Not just random 747’s turned into Air Force One.
Realistic-Astronaut7 t1_izcveaa wrote
I gotta find a reason to fly on one of these while they're still in passenger service!
boringhistoryfan t1_izcvj3i wrote
I gather they've largely been phased out of passenger carrying though. The new one, and most of the last produced set are all being used in Freight I think? The newer long haul planes like Dreamliners give much better fuel economy v passenger load than the old 747s from what I gather.
z500 t1_izcvuua wrote
I love getting to check out different airports. Even better when you have time to get a few drinks in. Those seats make my ass hurt though lol
SounderBruce t1_izcvyju wrote
Hundreds of Boeing employees were there for the rollout.
boringhistoryfan t1_izcw16l wrote
Yeah plane designed shifted a ton after the 747 as they've gone for more efficient aircraft. I seem to remember reading Airbus didn't read the market properly and screwed up in overcommitting on the A380, which was the "largest" commercial passenger carrier, but largely a dud. Prestige project ultimately because it just wasn't competitive against the dreamliners Boeing went for.
Bob_Juan_Santos t1_izcw5st wrote
first plane ride was a lufthansa 747 from beijin to frankfurt, if i remember correctly,
flight was great, the landing and take off, not so much due to pressure differences.
SounderBruce t1_izcw7zh wrote
The Boeing 777X-9 (which is a bit behind schedule) will have 60 fewer seats but will be longer than the 747-8. Also a wider wingspan (which required the use of folding tips).
SounderBruce t1_izcwbw7 wrote
Lufthansa and Korean Air are your best bets, as they have the largest fleet of 747-8s. Not many of the -400s are still in service.
pickles_and_mustard t1_izcwhy6 wrote
I'm surprised there were only 1,574 of them. You'd think there would have been a lot more made since 1967.
NeutralBias t1_izcwx79 wrote
End of an Era indeed. Few product designs last for years, let alone the more thanhalf century the B747 has been around. Really amazing work Boeing did in the 1960s. The 737, also designed and first certificated in the late 1960s, is still in production.
They dont build em like they used to…
An_Awesome_Name t1_izcxiwa wrote
The C-130 has been in production for 57% of aviation.
[deleted] t1_izcyu8p wrote
[removed]
ivytea t1_izcyzgf wrote
Even freighters are starting to use converted twin jets now as ETOPS becomes a reality and the reason why 747 still stays is because 1.higher MTOW and high attitude airport operation due to additional engines 2. Oversized and odd shaped cargo which calls for a dedicated front loading door which is only available on factory new 747 and not even the on converted freighters
flume t1_izcz7i2 wrote
Wait, 1 out of every 25 747s ever built has been destroyed in a crash? Damn I know they've been operating a long time and it includes stuff like CFIT incidents, but I'm surprised it's that high.
boringhistoryfan t1_izcz8f9 wrote
I wonder what will happen as the 747 is phased out for freight though. Because I gather that the bit about operation and the front door make it a pretty valuable carrier in lots of cases.
Will someone develop a freight specific jet? With features emulating what the outgoing 747 can do? Or would they move those things onto slower transports like shipping?
flume t1_izczegr wrote
What are you even trying to say?
flume t1_izczfzu wrote
This one will probably still be in service well into the 2040s, unless technology advancements make it not economical to fly.
noncongruent t1_izd7lb2 wrote
I've always thought the 747 was the most beautiful airliner, it just has so much style. All the others are just functional-looking.
FrankReynoldsCPA t1_izd9c5j wrote
Assuming Boeing still exists in 2055, it'll be another Boeing. My guess is it will be 777 or whatever has replaced the 777 in 30 years.
[deleted] t1_izd9dtj wrote
[removed]
qwerty12qwerty t1_izd9oj7 wrote
Unfortunately though the vast majority of that is going to be cargo. If I remember right, the US has no airline that currently flies a 747
Skellum t1_izd9q69 wrote
Plus the ashtrays were still there but full of gum.
headbangershappyhour t1_izdavp4 wrote
This is still pretty much universally true, especially for transoceanic flights. It contributed to the massive logistical clusterfuck of covid in the early months because the passenger carriers collectively fly more freight across the Pacific than FedEx/UPS/DHL. When passenger travel came to a halt, so did all of that supplemental freight carriage.
Jillredhanded t1_izdb57j wrote
My Dad worked for BOAC as an engineer when they debuted their fleet at Kennedy. I was just a little kid but remember they huge party they had for staff. Few years later when he'd transferred to Dulles he would occasionally bring me and my brothers to work with him. Playing Hide and Seek on a parked 747 was the BEST.
Made_of_Awesome t1_izdbu2a wrote
Not crash, just loss beyond economical repair. The stats include everything from terrorist attacks, cargo fires, and floods while in storage.
[deleted] t1_izdc9xd wrote
[deleted]
2SP00KY4ME t1_izdev5l wrote
But 747s are also 100ft+ longer and have no interest from military buffs
iamnotbillyjoel t1_izdi9wq wrote
seems like a BIG boeing guy
[deleted] t1_izdknim wrote
[removed]
Wild_Dingleberries t1_izdkxmu wrote
B-52 as well, both around 70 years now
B-52 in service that long, not production like the C-130.
[deleted] t1_izdl61d wrote
[removed]
PicardTangoAlpha t1_izdlgpz wrote
B-52 is in operation longer, but the last one rolled off the assembly line long long ago.
[deleted] t1_izdlp5c wrote
[removed]
Wild_Dingleberries t1_izdlz1w wrote
You are right. Me being half awake mistook production for service. Good catch
Blockhead47 t1_izdodwc wrote
The Beechcraft Bonanza has been in production since 1947.
63%.
Suck it Lockheed.
[deleted] t1_izduhe6 wrote
[deleted]
Vice-Admiral_Nelson t1_izdvexx wrote
Snap, that’s going in my cringe collection 📸
mccoyn t1_izdxmox wrote
ETOPS -Extended-range Twin-engine Operations Performance Standards
MTOW - Maximum Takeoff Weight
iamnotbillyjoel t1_ize0x66 wrote
after you admiral
newarkian t1_ize5c49 wrote
B-52 pilots are younger than the planes they fly
NecromanticSolution t1_ize5dy1 wrote
You don't get close to 450,000lb of rolling aeroplane either. OSHA still won't like that.
Kolipe t1_ize85x3 wrote
Got to fly the upper deck once. Seat 1A on a BA 747. Second best seat I've ever had.
Best seat ever was first class on an Emirates A380. Could only afford it because of an error fair. Doubt I'll ever fly first again.
bigwebs t1_ize8b1q wrote
That’s a paddlin
M_H_M_F t1_izeca7c wrote
That was the A380
9Blu t1_izecjiv wrote
> To clarify, they were built specifically to be Air Force One planes. Not just random 747’s turned into Air Force One.
No, they were repurposed planes that were already built:
> On 1 August 2017, Defense One reported that, in an effort to pay less for the replacement program, the US Air Force contracted to purchase two of the bankrupt Russian airline Transaero's undelivered 747-8 Intercontinentals from Boeing, which was storing them in the Mojave Desert to prevent corrosion. These airplanes, which were flight-tested but never delivered, are to be retrofitted with telecommunications and security equipment to bring them to the required security level of presidential aircraft, but without the aerial refueling capability originally requested as the structural reinforcements necessary cannot be retrofitted onto an existing airframe.
blue_twidget t1_izedf5g wrote
Boeing has a refurbishment program to convert old passenger planes into freight, so probably.
maxxspeed OP t1_izefkpr wrote
I got to ride in first class coming home from Basic Training in the Army. Flight was over-booked in coach but had had an open spot in First Class. I was 17 in my Khakis, didn't shave yet and I think they thought I was cute. Got 2 free Screwdrivers. (nobody cards a manboy in uniform)
Vault-71 t1_izeg5hc wrote
Wait, can you legally buy a B-52?
RubberPny t1_izesodn wrote
Yup. 1962 was the last one, though they have been upgraded numerous times over since then. New engines, electronics, weapons, etc.
djkuhl t1_izeva2m wrote
Been a few projects up on Barnstormers. You can probably make an offer at a boneyard in the desert. You’ll most likely have to find a lot of alternative parts that were stripped out.
PicardTangoAlpha t1_izf42nc wrote
And new songs even!
[deleted] t1_izf553j wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_izfcfc4 wrote
[removed]
Kolipe t1_izfd8g6 wrote
I was in my mid 20s wearing a converge shirt and jeans lmao
[deleted] t1_izfhcxu wrote
[removed]
cheemsburgrrr t1_izfzlvj wrote
From Pan-Am to Lufthansa, the queen of the Skies will not be forgotten.
[deleted] t1_izg3hkv wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_izg5790 wrote
[removed]
Iniquite t1_izhnvm4 wrote
I’m guessing you look for posts that you can correct and then spend a bunch of time looking up info to post just to look smart. So, unfortunately for you, you didn’t think about wording, that and OP edited their post. There’s a huge difference between taking a used plane out of service and converting it to an Air Force One, as the original, unedited post suggested, and taking a new plane and modifying it. These planes were built to be Air Force One’s, as I stated. But good job quoting Wikipedia.
Don’t be a douche.
9Blu t1_izhow8k wrote
No. I already knew about the change of Air Force One and have since the change was made. I am sorry you got called out for being wrong and are embarrassed by it but attempting some bullshit rationalization isn’t helping you.
As for being a douche, take your own advice. You obviously need it more than I do.
Iniquite t1_izhpkfc wrote
You’re still being a douche.
Also, what? I also knew about the change of Air Force One.
Please proofread.
[deleted] t1_izlszhc wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_izmwtv5 wrote
[removed]
V41K4R13 t1_izbhkqv wrote
Great plane that’s very comfy, sad to see it go.