Hacker News Reader

Comment by Tiltowait-- | Hacker News Reader

The Concorde was done in by fuel prices, and because it was a small aircraft. I visited one in a museum and it was claustrophobic. Also nobody should be sorry that elites have to sit on long overseas flights just like we do.

The A380 was a boondoggle from the beginning, an attempt to outdo Boeing by having TEH BIGGEREST aircraft on the market. Having to rebuild airports to accommodate it wasn't a good idea.

The 747 is a 1960s design, for Pete's sake. How long were we planning on keeping it around?

View on HN

The B52 first was first rolled out for production use on 18 March 1954. The "...long-rifle of the air age..." -- Nathan Twining. It has not been manufactured since 1962. They are still in active military service, the ones that remain, and continue to see upgrades and evolving mission scope. 100 years of service is feasible.

Cost per flying hour of a modern B52: $70,000 [1]

1. https://www.airforcemag.com/article/re-engining-the-b-52/

They also spend comparatively little time in the air. Compared with passenger aircraft where their return-on-investment strongly incentivises them being airborne as much as possible, military aircraft spend _a lot_ of time sitting around, either unused or in maintenance.

It's very easy to upgrade a strategic bomber. All strategic bombers are prone to interception so the only way to stand out is by having a bigger and modern payload. You can see the same development with tank cannons. Bigger calibers aren't necessary. The Rheinmetall 120mm cannon can be upgraded by simply shooting modern munition.

747 has been continually updated but the all modern airliners still have the same fundamental design.

> "Also nobody should be sorry that elites have to sit on long overseas flights just like we do."

Anyone can fly as long as they can pay for the ticket. First-class passengers subsidize economy seats for most flights, and new tech generally starts with wealthier early-adopters before it becomes accessible for everyone.

By the way, if you live in the West then you're an "elite" compared to billions. Let's drop the classism.

When I worked in aerospace I was told by a Boeing old-timer that he was sure Boeing only made the 747-700X proposal last as long as it did in order to force Airbus into making the A380 mistake, and that none of the Boeing insiders thought a plane that big would ever make real sense to spend money developing. Naturally I have no way to verify this, but it's a fun corporate strategy conspiracy theory.

I don't think there's any question that it was a response to the A380, and it's quite plausible they wouldn't have developed it without the A380. That said, compared with the A380 development the 747-8 will have been cheap to develop, and had an impact on the market as a whole even if it scarcely made much money.

Yup https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUmJ9rSVrKQ

It's pretty sad how Airbus defines themselves in comparison to Boeing, and Europeans define themselves in comparison to Americans in general. They don't have much identity of their own other than "screw you America! I'm the opposite of whatever you stand for!" It's so small-minded and petty, but unfortunately it's reality.

> Also nobody should be sorry that elites have to sit on long overseas flights just like we do.

Or we could all be flying supersonic because of the economies of scale.

The 747 was updated recently: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747-8

The major issue with the jumbo planes' (passenger) variants is that twin-engines now have significantly increased range, and have half the fuel consumption to boot. It's a lot easier to sell premium direct tickets rather than convince people to transfer onto a large cattle-class jumbo jet. Even pre-point to point, actually filling up a jumbo jet could be quite difficult, so now the death knell has been a long time coming, unless you're a Middle Eastern carrier operating the super-long-haul hub model.

> The 747 is a 1960s design, for Pete's sake. How long were we planning on keeping it around?

Sometimes old designs are pretty good. The C-130 Hercules rolled out in 1956. It's still in service in the US and other air forces. [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_C-130_Hercules

> I visited one in a museum and it was claustrophobic.

I also got to do a walk through in the Air and Space Museum over a decade ago. It's deinitely a tight space amd the seats were tiny. I'm not terribly tall, about 6 feet, and I had to hunch over to avoid hitting my head.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com