
As of today, no US passenger airlines operate the Boeing 747 - rcarmo
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/01/delta-sends-the-last-us-passenger-747-into-retirement/
======
sillysaurus3
If anyone finds the operation of airlines a fascinating topic, you might like
Wendover Productions:
[https://www.youtube.com/user/Wendoverproductions](https://www.youtube.com/user/Wendoverproductions)

How airlines price flights
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72hlr-E7KA0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72hlr-E7KA0)

The little plane war
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1YMPk3XhCc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1YMPk3XhCc)

Why planes don't fly faster
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1QEj09Pe6k](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1QEj09Pe6k)

The economics of Airline Class
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzB5xtGGsTc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzB5xtGGsTc)

How airlines schedule flights
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGXahSnA_oA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGXahSnA_oA)

I just recently found the channel. So much good stuff. (My unrelated favorite
is
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j48Z3W35FI0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j48Z3W35FI0)
How the US government will survive doomsday.)

~~~
anitil
Wendover is truly fantastic. Also a very soothing voice, which I'm sure helps

------
philjohn
I recently travelled on one of BA's "refurbished" 747's and I hated every
minute of it. Noisy, cramped facilities, find the A380, 777 and 787 far more
comfortable for a long haul flight.

The 747 was amazing, when it was introduced, but it has now reached an age
where it needs to retire gracefully, and point to point with twin engines is
seeing to that.

~~~
nolok
I travelled on both the A380 (Emirates) and the 787 (Oman Air) in the last
year and they are really a big step forward. I would put them above the 777,
maybe it's the specific configuration used by Qatar Airways (777-300ER) but
they simply weren't as good as the other too.

Also flown a A350-900 with Qatar Airways and it was really close to the A380,
seat were very pleasant.

As for the noise in planes: if you travel a lot by planes, buy active noise
reduction headphones. Bose QuietComfort 35 or 25 work very very well. Try them
out first if possible, a small amount of people dislike the feeling they give
with noise reduction active, but for me it was a world changer as I take about
2 planes a month, my 35 were one of the best purchase I ever made.

~~~
mythmon_
I very recently got a pair of QC35s. The noise cancelling was neat, but didn't
seem that useful in every day situations. Then I took a flight with them, and
they still didn't seem that interesting. Until I took them off for the first
time after take off. I was amazed at how loud the plane suddenly become. Now
I'm very impressed with how much of a difference they make, and will
definitely be bringing with me on every flight.

~~~
dzhiurgis
I use them:

In car for long drives

In office

In bed when someone snores next to me

In bed when street outside is loud

On a boat when motoring

On every flight

~~~
mynameisvlad
Don't use them in cars. That's incredibly irresponsible both to
yourself/others in your car and those driving alongside you, not to mention
illegal in a lot of places. You use audio cues far more often than you realize
while driving.

~~~
irrational
I once wondered what states have laws against headphones/earbuds and was
astonished not only by how many places don't have laws, but how many that do
have laws that specifically say its okay (or okay with one ear uncovered).
Going in I expected to find near universal laws against it.

~~~
mynameisvlad
Yeah I think it's because most of the laws were written a few years ago, where
in-car Bluetooth wasn't common but one-ear headsets were. Lawmakers probably
didn't want to outright exclude phone use in the car, and figured having one
ear in use was "good enough".

Most modern distraction laws (the ones actually written nowadays) are very
thorough. WA just passed one last year where you essentially can't touch your
phone while driving. BC has had one for a few years now which includes any
non-fixed electronic device while the car is running.

------
mentos
"The greatest number of passengers ever carried by a commercial airliner is
1,088, by an El Al Boeing 747 during Operation Solomon, which involved the
evacuation of Ethiopian Jews from Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and started on 24 May
1991."

[http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/most-
passe...](http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/most-passengers-
on-an-aircraft/)

~~~
throwaway30yo
When it took off, it was only 1086.

~~~
uniformlyrandom
I had to skim the article to make sure you were not kidding. In retrospect,
this is not so unusual - this was a rescue operation, so regular no-flying
constraints did not apply. And normally, ~4% of women are pregnant, so EV for
number of pregnant and ready to give birth women is 1086 _0.04(percentarge
pregnant)_ 0.5(percentage of women)/9(only 9-month pregnant are ready to give
birth) ~= 2.41. What surprising is that they gave birth during the flight, and
not on any other day of the month. TRansition from danger to relative safety,
I guess?

~~~
FabHK
Yes, so if time of birth is uniformly random (haha) across the final month,
then, assuming the flight took, say, half a day, you'd still have to multiply
by 0.5/30, so have only ~0.05 expected child births. Still surprising, in
other words. Good chance pregnant women were prioritised.

~~~
tzs
It was also probably a stressful and frightening flight. A lot of people
believe that this can increase the chances that a woman will go into labor
[1], although a quick round of Googling didn't turn up anything convincing on
whether or not that is true or just a myth.

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyRrz9Soutw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyRrz9Soutw)

------
merraksh
Another way to get aboard one is to join Iron Maiden:

[https://ironmaiden.com/ed-force-one](https://ironmaiden.com/ed-force-one)

~~~
Shivatron
Somewhat famously, Iron Maiden frontman Bruce Dickinson is an Airline
Transport Pilot with a type rating in the 747, enabling him to fly his band's
own plane.

~~~
cjsuk
I watched an interview with him and apparently the reason was it worked out
cheaper!

~~~
at-fates-hands
He's a total workaholic to be sure.

I can't imagine flying a 747 for 10-12 hours (from the UK to Brazil), getting
off, doing a 3 hour concert, then getting back on the plane and flying to your
next gig. Even with a day or two off, that's an insanely hard schedule.

Props to him though, like you said, he claims the band saved a ton of money
doing it that way.

~~~
mschuster91
> Even with a day or two off, that's an insanely hard schedule.

...not to mention borderline illegal. Yes on long haul flights the pilots can
and do sleep, but God hope nothing ever happens.

~~~
mantas
That's why they had other pilots. Dickinson was flying the plane only if the
schedule was loose enough.

~~~
FabHK
I'm wondering whether he could fly the plane with a PPL under FAR part 91,
general aviation? Then he wouldn't be subject to airline rest restrictions.

~~~
cyberferret
Pretty sure there is a weight limit for PPL? At least I think there is here in
Australia.

If memory serves me correctly, I think PPL allows you to fly aircraft up to
5700Kg MTOW. Even one of the 747 engines might bust that limit. :)

~~~
FabHK
From what I recall above a certain MTOW a type rating is required. So,
certainly you need multi-engine category & class, the complex, high-
performance, and pressurised-cabin endorsement, and a type rating, and then
you could fly your 747, but only VFR :)

Here some related discussion:

[https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/266790-john-travolta-
his-70...](https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/266790-john-travolta-his-707-do-
they-follow-rules.html)

[https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091129142010A...](https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091129142010AARO43V)

------
2T1Qka0rEiPr
Given that the A380 seems to be doing so poorly, what has taken over in the
big jumbo market? Or is it just that the big jumbo market is ceasing to exist
altogether?

~~~
jpatokal
The Boeing 787 Dreamliner and the Airbus A350 can both seat up to ~350
passengers, which is not hugely different from the 350-450 on a longhaul 747,
but is much more efficient since they're twin-engine instead of quad. (And
yes, you can cram in well over 500 pax into a 747 if you use an tight economy-
only config, but few airlines do.)

The overall trend in aviation is point-to-point routes and frequent flights on
smaller planes. Just today it was announced that Sydney-Melbourne is now the
world's second busiest air route, even though it's almost entirely served by
"small" 737/A320s: [https://www.ausbt.com.au/sydney-melbourne-is-now-the-
world-s...](https://www.ausbt.com.au/sydney-melbourne-is-now-the-world-s-
second-busiest-airline-route)

There are still A380s flying, but they only make sense on those fairly rare
routes where you've got massive volume and tight slot restrictions. London-
Singapore/Dubai-Sydney works, not a whole lot of other routes do.

~~~
awiesenhofer
> Sydney-Melbourne is now the world's second busiest air route

Interesting, with just about 900km between both cities they seem the perfect
candidates for a highspeed rail link instead.

~~~
sleavey
It's also interesting because Australia only has 25M people. All the others in
the top 10 [1] are in countries with much larger populations.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_busiest_passenger_air_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_busiest_passenger_air_routes#World)

~~~
toomanybeersies
Melbourne and Sydney are both cities of over 4 million people though.

I think it might be due to the fact that Sydney are Melbourne are both similar
sized, so it's 50/50 where a company should set up their office, so for in-
person meetings, there's a lot of flying to and from required.

------
joezydeco
In a previous discussion, avar explains why United and Delta chose to mothball
their 747s instead of retrofit them with the fuel tank interting systems that
were required by the FAA after December 26th, 2017. UAL and DAL flew their
planes right up to the deadline.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16016654](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16016654)

------
sgwealti
Pretty sure there are US freight airlines that still use 747s.

~~~
fipar
Centurion Cargo flew one by my house Yesterday, you are correct.

------
code4tee
It will live on as a freight plane for a while, but yes the days of the “jumbo
jet” for passenger travel are broadly coming to a close apart from a select
few routes. The future is in large twin jets. Boeing knocked it out of the
park there with the 787 and new 777 models.

------
cyberferret
Strange turn of events. I remember in the early 80's QANTAS was the only
airline in the world who operated a _purely_ all 747 passenger fleet. They are
down to about a half dozen now I believe, and those are due to be phased out
over the next few years.

~~~
rconti
I assume "internationally" was an intended-but-missing qualifier there?

~~~
cyberferret
Yes, sorry, this was back when TAA (which changed to Australian), Ansett etc.
had the domestic market sewn up and QANTAS were doing purely international
flights. (Though I believe they may have done some longer domestic routes like
Perth-Sydney with 747s?!?).

When Australian Airlines was brought under the QANTAS wing and rebranded, then
they went back to 737s, 767s, Airbuses etc. for domestic routes too.

------
gist
> but Pan American Airlines boss Juan Trippe wanted something special for his
> passengers, and he approached the aircraft manufacturer with a request for a
> plane that could carry twice as many passengers as its bread-and-butter
> long-haul model. In 1966, Trippe signed an order for 25 of the new passenger
> airliners. The first of these entered service in 1970, and the world would
> never be the same again.

This is one of those stories that is so often repeated it becomes truth. My
issue is that it makes it sound as if Boeing took on creating the 747 because
Juan asked for it and business wise there is no way it could have happened
like that. But it sounds nice and the type of thing PR wise the press would
repeat forever. It was probably more closely that there was a discussion
between the heads of the two companies and then Boeing ran the idea by other
airlines or did their research and decided it made sense to bet the company on
building the 747 (which was another story that has been told time and time
again 'the big bet'). I would suspect that Boeing didn't even have a signed
commitment from Pan Am to even take on the enormous cost of the program (prior
to the first order in 1966) as it wouldn't have made sense for Pan Am to pay
anything and/or even guarantee any purchase without being able to get out of
the contract w/o any penalties. So this is a bit different than when a ship is
built to order for a cruise line because in that case it's a firm order and an
order for 1 (or 3 whatever).

Not doubting that a version of this happened just that it sounds so romantic
and unrealistic business wise.

------
thiscatis
*no US passenger airplane. Still cargo 747s in operation.

------
rb666
Shame, it's a beautiful kit. Plus the 747 has personal air fans to tune your
cooling. The modern planes tend to have done away with those, meaning you're
usually too cold or too hot.

~~~
robotresearcher
On the other hand, you get higher air pressure, quieter engines, larger
windows and MUCH larger bathrooms on the new planes. I choose flights so I can
get the 787 whenever possible. Nice plane.

~~~
PacketPaul
I think the larger bathrooms is an interior config. The airline can design the
size of the bathroom.

~~~
kalleboo
One of my favorite bathroom configs is on the Lufthansa A340, where they have
a lower deck (intruding into the cargo space) with a bunch of lavatories.

I also like the business class ANA 787 bathrooms with the washlet (bidet)
toilets.

~~~
mynameisvlad
I believe ANA has bidet toilets set up in all their bathrooms, not just
Business.

~~~
kalleboo
They weren't when I flew, but that was when they has just gotten deliveries
and were still using them on domestic routes, so things may have changed. Now
their domestic 787s are the most bare-bone interiors you've ever seen, without
even IFE.

------
newman8r
not an airline, but global supertanker operates a firefighting 747 that was
recently fighting the southern california wildfires
[http://globalsupertanker.com/](http://globalsupertanker.com/)

~~~
IgorPartola
Holy crap this is amazing. The end of their About video is hilarious.

~~~
bob_theslob646
This is the video.

[https://vimeo.com/178970218](https://vimeo.com/178970218)

Start it at 7:10.

Effectively, the aircraft drops water on a guy who is not expecting it.

------
simonbyrne
Only got to do it once, but the upper deck was nice: it felt like your own
private plane. But as far as economy goes, the A380 wins, especially seat 48D.

------
donatj
Huh, I didn’t expect that to happen nearly so soon. I guess financial
pressures will do that.

~~~
InternetOfStuff
I think FAA changed fuel tank inerting rules, and most airlines decided it was
too costly to retrofit the 747.

------
billfruit
Are there any 707s still in service? What about the 720s and 727s?

~~~
btgeekboy
A few, mostly military.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_707_operators](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_707_operators)

------
dmurthy
If only they could run on just twin engines.

------
ryanthedev
If only we could say we also didnt operate any windows xp machines.

Hell it was only 5 years ago we still were running windows nt machines with a
max version of dotnet 1.0

~~~
ryanthedev
Talking in regards to airlines btw

------
Jdam
Isn’t the White House Air Service or however that is called also an airline?

~~~
Someone1234
You mean the US Air Force? I'd call them a military detachment.

~~~
cromulent
And technically they run VC-25s, not 747s.

------
dfsegoat
Technically article title is incorrect and should be "...no US PASSENGER
airlines operate the Boeing 747" \-- UPS Airlines is US based and still
operates the 747-400[1], it is just they are a cargo airline and not
passenger.

1\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UPS_Airlines#Fleet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UPS_Airlines#Fleet)

~~~
sctb
OK, we've added a “passenger” to the headline.

------
johnWick2
747

------
jguimont
Well, there is Air Force One that is a modified 747 and both are still flying.

