British Airways announces immediate retirement of 747 fleet
airlinegeeks.com
airlinegeeks.com
I put on my playlist in shuffle after dinner, and drifted away into a very nice, long, uninterrupted sleep. When I woke up my breakfast was ready and waiting for me on the big surfaces below the windows. BA Club World has it's issues, but that flight was so memorably that I renamed my playlist from "Night Tunes" to "64K" to remember it.
Thanks for causing me to Google that. Now I've got something "new" to listen to while I make breakfast.
Wouldn't be surprised if this means the A380 being retired isn't far behind, too. It may have some life left in it because LHR really needs those big planes due to limited landing slots, but if travel doesn't pick up soon and they can't fill the A380s... yikes.
We found out that there was a brand new 747 parked at LAX, one of the first off the line. It wasn't in passenger service yet, but it was open for anyone to take a self guided tour!
So we ran down there and wandered around the 747, visited the cockpit and everywhere and went up and down the staircase a few times.
I'd been on airplanes before, but never one with a spiral staircase. It was awesome!
I make it a point to never drink fuel additives. I figure my car can use it better than me.
Supposedly stood for “serenity, tranquility, peace”
I was a five-year-old in Eugene, Oregon in the late 1950s. The new house being built down the hill next door had an underground bomb shelter. Of course we made that our clubhouse during construction!
The house just up the hill wasn't as far along, but they had cut down the trees and we made tunnels and hideouts among the fallen trunks and branches. We called it "The Rough Country".
And then I got a chemistry set! The real kind, with chemicals and apparatus that could burn you, blind you, or take your skin right off.
Of course, now we have eliminated all risk and the world is perfectly safe.
We did know that when you took it, it felt a bit like real psilocybin mushrooms.
But it came as a powder in a capsule, so we called it fake psilocybin.
Air France: https://simpleflying.com/air-france-airbus-a380-retirement/
Lufthansa: https://www.businesstraveller.com/business-travel/2020/06/19...
Emirates: https://www.forbes.com/sites/willhorton1/2020/05/18/emirates...
...and Airbus will stop building them entirely in 2021: https://www.businesstraveller.com/business-travel/2019/02/14...
That being said, flying long haul (transatlantic) on a 787 is sooo much better!
I will say the A380 is really so much better than 747s (or at least 747-4s, not sure about the newer -8s). You can just tell how much quieter it is, and the size of some of the business class sections is outstanding. Emirates' business class bar is such a fun little novelty that made flying delightful. And their economy just felt better too.
Even their A350 business seat didn't have quite as much sitting-room, much of the space being taken up by part of the built-in furniture.
Given the option, I'd pick the A380 over the A350.
A lot of employers nowadays seem to restrict business class travel to VP level and above (or sometimes the really exceptional IC, as in "distinguished engineer" status). If you fly economy enough, you may get enough status to get upgraded occasionally; if you don't fly often, you've got little hope. My Dad tells me how, back in the 1990s, the company he worked for let anyone (even the most junior IC) fly business whenever the flight was long enough (and all US-Australia flights were). Such a policy was not uncommon back then, much rarer today.
Everyone at the VP level doesn’t get to book better than the rest, but they fly so much that they’re regularly upgraded.
But the beauty of the 747 was seeing it from the outside. I once spent an entire afternoon watching them take off and land at JFK (in 1990 I think) and I still remember it fondly. It was incredible, and beautiful.
One of the great things about the 747 was all the different variations. It had what the aviation industry craved.
The A380 is cool to watch land, it always looks like its just going to fall out of the sky. But it's too much plane.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747#Variants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A380#End_of_production
In hindsight it was a mistake ever developing them. They're a huge loss for Airbus and will never remotely turn a profit.
If air traffic returns to fast growth era, congestion in large cities becomes issue again and A380 shines there. There is only limited number of them and A380 is surprisingly efficient.
Landing slots are expensive. A380 wins cost/passenger easily in busy and congested airfields.
A380 is easy on pavement. Pavement maintenance is roughly third of airfield maintenance. When landing fee rates reflect pavement loading accurately, a380 becomes even more economic to operate in large airfields.
It isn't a dumb idea. It's a marvelous machine. But it isn't viable commercially and Airbus let prestige cloud their judgement. Doesn't help that they fucked up the service introduction, causing a two year delay and probably extra billions.
The noise pollution from aircraft flying over London to land is horrible, and affects millions of people.
They are only scheduled to deliver another 9 planes, and I wouldn't be surprised if some of those end up cancelled.
That being said, the A380 being a lemon certainly cost Airbus far less than the 737MAX program has taken down Boeing.
That’s not the reason. Airbus was exceptionally short sighted; they designed an A380 cargo option but never built it.
> Alas, there are some flaws in the A380 design when it comes to cargo.
> The first is how heavy the A380 is. Because the A380 has a heavier empty weight than the competitive Boeing 747-8F cargo carrier, it actually costs more to get the aircraft in the air.
> In practice, this means that despite having more room onboard, the A380 would hit its maximum carrying weight before the entire volume was filled up, leaving plenty of extra empty room onboard. It would be too expensive for a cargo operator to run to make a profit.
In all honesty, I'm pretty sure Airbus exec went with the A380 design as a pissing contest with Boeing.
But even the objectively superior business class on QR's new planes can't compare with climbing the stairs to the top deck, sitting in 64A [0] with the table and bins next to you for your flight. I first did this in September 2012, on a flight from Moscow to Heathrow. While we were coming in over the North sea I gave the at-seat phone a go -- it still worked (I think they were removed from service a while ago), certainly an experience at the time to be able to talk to someone from mid-air.
My wife and I had a weekend to Seatle in 2014, and bagged seat 1A and 1K at the very nose[1]. I think the 747 is the only plane you can get where you fly in front of the pilot (the A380 cockpit is at the front), and a unique experience.
I wasn't really flying when Concorde was around, and I've always regretted not flying it, but I'm glad I managed to experience both the upper deck and the nosecone on a 747.
(Oh yes, BA's 747 was one of the few planes I've flown on with a window in the toilet)
[0] https://21stcenturyjourneys.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/dsc0...
[1] https://scottmcgee.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/11-ba747-larg...
The last time was just this year before COVID hit, when a Storm Ciara shut down down London Heathrow for 2 days. I 'volunteered' to postpone my flight without making a fuss, since I absolutely didn't mind extending my v̶a̶c̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ business trip by a couple of days.
Though I was half expecting, half wishing for it, BA bumped me up to business class and that too on the upper deck. I like to think they did that because of the inconvenience they thought they subjected me to. It wasn't a window seat but I couldn't care less. There are only 5 rows of seats upstairs, so it really did feel like being in a private jet, with 2 attendants just for those 5 rows. Especially since the upper deck is a comfortable 2-2 configuration with an extra wide aisle, as opposed to the packed 2-4-2 configuration on the lower deck, even for business class. [1]
That was my last flight this year and I'm grateful that I could have been lucky enough to experience this before the 747s were retired; now I'm left wondering how flying again in economy would feel like having experienced this.
[1] https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/British_Airways/British_Ai...
The trip was LHR to JFK.
Pricing was ludicrous -- I think around AUD $600 (one way). This would have been 10% of list. The joys of ID90.
I have a handful of recollections. Most of the seats were empty. I could not stand fully upright in the aisle (I'm 188cm, or ~ 6'2"). Breakfast was delicious, and it was five courses. The whole flight was very noisy. At cruising altitude I was sure I was seeing curvature of the planet (I concede this may have been wishful thinking, or an artefact of the windows).
It was about four hours, and you really did land before you took off, on that particular leg.
At the time - young & holidaying - this wasn't as big a deal as it would have been in more recent years, when work obligations transformed travel from enchantingly wondrous, to onerous obligation.
Many people have reported this, and it's widely publicised so perhaps not so wishful! https://www.ft.com/content/8a96c13e-2623-11e9-b20d-5376ca521... - for example.
https://thepointsguy.com/news/virgin-retires-747s-closes-lgw...
I believe Cunard (part of Carnival) operates the Queen Mary 2, the last running ocean liner on Earth. It does Southampton to New York via traditional Atlantic crossing, just like the Titanic (almost) did. Not sure if it makes money, but (pre-pandemic) it was likely subsidized by other cruise ships or by QM2 cruising herself.
It'd be cool to have a flight from Heathrow to JFK (?) on one 747 for people who want to experience the same plane. I think an airline enthusiast might go several times a year, and there's a goodly number of airline enthusiasts.
I think a flying boat tour of the Pacific islands would be a wicked honeymoon!
I doubt it's subsidized, given how expensive it is. I'm not sure what distinction you're drawing between "cruise ship" and "ocean liner" - I guess in theory the QM2 runs to a timetable while cruise ships run to ad-hoc charter schedules, but in practice those cruise schedules are set years in advance and that timetable can be changed on fairly short notice. When I looked into a round-the-world trip it didn't seem like e.g. Vancouver-Hawaii was going to be any harder than NY-Southampton - in both cases you look at the schedule and book your trip months in advance.
The QM2 is a luxury service but it's not just for enthusiasts - there are plenty of people who can't or don't want to fly, and are willing to pay the price.
See: https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-ocean-l...
https://oppositelock.kinja.com/the-last-surviving-transatlan...
Plenty of passenger ships - to give a concrete example, the Spirit class - routinely make transoceanic crossings at a reasonable speed following schedules published years in advance. Perhaps a little slower than the QM2. Perhaps with slightly more onboard amenities. But I can see no clear distinction that justifies this talk of the QM2 being somehow "the last" and qualitatively different from these other ships that do very much the same thing in practice.
> 41 feet for every gallon
Not great fuel economy either. When multiplied by the 3000 people on board at max capacity that extends efficiency but only to a point.
[0] https://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/my-ride-on-the-conc...
...there's simply no competition for the Blackbird.
Yes, I know it's faster. Yes, that makes it cooler. But even in this flight of fancy, I don't imagine myself skilled enough to pilot an A-12 solo.
I've worked in commercial aviation for long enough not to underestimate the size of the aviation enthusiast market, but still doubt they'd want multiple flights a year on what is, apart from the upper deck, a pretty ordinary widebody. Ancient cruise ships are easier to levy massive charges for because they're a multi-day experience benchmarked against already expensive cruises, and it's not like aircraft are easier or cheaper to keep running. The only way you'd keep retro aircraft open as a regular scheduled flight for enthusiasts would be if it mainly served normal passengers, like the ancient 707s that used to operate Iranian domestic routes due to lack of competition and difficulty of obtaining modern aircraft spares under the sanctions regime. Some people went to Iran just to fly on them, but not that many.
The flying boat tour would be great fun for any suitably enthusiastic millionaire though. :D
Actually, googling "DC3 flights" brings up a few companies in different parts of the world.
I say this because of the MAX, and some other behaviours which stem from Boeing moving from an engineering focussed company to a giant shit-show of mergers, stock games, and west-east mindshare collapse (judged from the partisan books & articles I read)
I fly Boeing and Airbus mainly whenever I travel, which used to be 10+ times per year long-haul worldwide. Never felt unsafe and that includes aborted takeoffs, engine fails on the ramp, and airpack breakdowns in-flight necessitating fuel-dump and go-back. These machines work. The FCC mandated engineering around flight safety in operations work.
But.. I trust the 74x and the 380/350 more than I trust the 787 and the MAX because of some spectacularly bad public engineering exposure.
The battery fire story, and the MAX-no-training-needed story are really not good for Boeing.
The whole "if it isn't boeing I am not going" thing is long long past.
on the jumbo, It wasn't the first 'passenger plane with a bump' -there was a couple of precursors in the pre-jet era, including one designed to carry a car in the body and pax up top. And, it wasn't the first with stairs by a long chalk, the flying boats had them as did some of the jet era precursors.
But, it was by far and away the bestest, most successful 4 engine plane. The life extension, (and length extensions!) over the series was amazing. As was the fuel economy and fitout. I think the decision by Lufthansa to re-tool on the 8 series was probably a huge mistake, but then so was QANTAS decision not to take the 777.
Airbus did good work with the 380. I think it is a fantastic ride as a passenger, in all classes, its quiet, and lovely and when full, good economic sense. But its dying from a change in the model.
The 747 is going to have a long life in cargo. I think even without a lift-nose this workhorse has a lot to go yet.
(not a pilot: 20+ year international business traveller perspective)
I've followed the 737 MAX debacle quite a bit. I've also seen a video from someone who used to analyse (private) airplane crashes. He made it really clear that any crash is the result of a multiple of reasons. Meaning, there's no one root cause, there are multiple causes coming together. This unlike business where it's almost always assumed that there's a "root cause" (singular).
One worry of mine is that not enough is done to allow the FAA to properly certify the 737 MAX. There's been (proposed?) changes, but they feel more like window dressing. Other aviation authorities used to follow the FAA, due to the 737 MAX you see that this trust has gone. You've highlighted how the change in culture in Boeing is another cause of this. But aside from that, if this could happen at Boeing, it could (theoretically) just as well happen with Airbus. This again due to a multitude of reasons, how FAA is setup, Boeing changed, competition from Airbus, advantage of reusing an existing type. A lot of reasons could be applicable again, or apply to Airbus.
Aside from really checking the 737 MAX plus other aviation authorities not really trusting the FAA I don't see enough comprehensive changes.
Regarding the 747 and retiring of these planes: it seems every new airplane gives people less space to walk around, less space for luggage, less space in chairs (chair width is important as well!), etc.
On the other hand, more modern plans are so much more efficient. An A350 uses literally half the fuel of an A380, (which itself uses less than a 747).With lower capacity hopefully comes lower demand for air travel - this can only be a good thing.
Why is it only a good thing? Lower capacity for air travel means all kinds of travel that is of value to people can't reasonably take place any more. People have relatives and friends that live too far away to make visiting in person by any other means infeasible. People want to go to see places in person that they can't feasibly get to any other way. People have business reasons to make trips that can't feasibly be made any other way. There was a lot of demand pre-COVID for air travel for a reason. The capacity just vanishing is a loss for many.
Maybe. I think we've seen that a lot of those business trips weren't actually necessary as such, and were more about making an expensive signal of commitment.
But in 2019 I think most trips were more about corporate inertia than practical need.
I try to avoid getting too anchored to incidental aspects of the present. One way is to turn those questions around: what about the people with relatives and friends that already live too far away to make travel feasible? What about all the places that people already can't feasibly get to? What about all of the business which already doesn't get done due to travel practicalities?
There will always be more opportunities to open up by cranking the dial a bit further; but we have to strike a balance somewhere due to the costs. It's a shame that so many opportunities are already blocked by travel costs, but there's no point losing sleep over it. Likewise, if the current costs are too great (e.g. environmentally), then the dial should be turned down a little. Many people would be disadvantaged, but they'd just get added to all those already disadvantaged by the current equilibrium. It's not, in itself, a reason to avoid dialing things down. The things which really matter are: the relative numbers of people affected, whether the budget could be made more equitable or prioritised (e.g. charging frequent flyers more, to keep one-off prices lower), etc.
Many aspects of the present are not "incidental", they are based on choices that people made in the past in the context of expectations about the future and what options would reasonably be available to them. A sudden drastic change in the actual options available in the present vs. what options people reasonably expected when they made significant choices in the past (like where to live and where to locate businesses) is going to have a drastic impact on people.
Yes, a new equilibrium will need to be found and we're not just going to go back to the way things were before, but to say that the drastic change that has happened "can only be a good thing", as the post I originally responded to did, ignores the large negative impact of the change on people who made significant choices in the past that they would not have made if the future they had expected then was the same as our actual present now.
The entire video sparks nostalgia and joy
It's way different now in the post-911 aviation world, but on several of those flights the flight attendants keeping tabs on me would take me up to the cockpit at some point during the flight to say hello to the pilots and get a wing pin[2]. And on one occasion I got to spend the majority of the flight in a cockpit jumpseat.
Man, those were fun times. One trip I got pawned onto the maintenance crew afterwards due to the person picking me up being late, and got to drive the vehicle thing that pushes back planes from the gate. As a kid, I think I enjoyed that experience (and the feeling of power over an airplane) more than the jumpseat experience.
[1] https://thepointsguy.com/news/airline-unaccompanied-minor-po...
[2] https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-children/1437386-real...
My highlight: At some point, late seventies or early eighties, I got to pull the lever to lower the landing gear! I can imagine that being legal, even then...
Ha! Yea, it's amazing how liberal pilots used to be (at least in relation to kids). As a parent now, I can't fathom the thought process of a pilot trusting a kid (even more so one they don't know) in the cockpit of an in-flight airliner.
But as someone who was able to experience it, I'm forever grateful for those pilots with potentially questionable judgement. The few childhood memories I can recall are vague recollections at best, but those particular memories are so crystalized I still get a sense of elation just recalling the experiences.
Man, even aside from the deprecated hub and spoke model, this just seems too easy an argument against the a380. No wonder it croaked.
To compare across the same airline, SIA long-haul configuration for the A350-900 is 253 pax in 3-class vs 443 in 4-class for the A380, so the A350-900 is carrying 40% fewer people and 1 less class.
Even against the most modern aircraft the A380's fuel consumption per pax per unit distance is likely to be competitive, the problem is filling the thing with people.
You know the seats are at the discretion of the airline, right? There’s no built in A380 first class.
Comparing the number of seats on an Emirates A380 for example is a bit unfair, because the upper deck is just so luxurious. If you remove the cocktail bar, the showers, and just keep standard business cots on the upper deck, you could probably add a good 20-30 seats
That would still be wrong. Most decent First Class cabins these days are on 777s: https://onemileatatime.com/best-first-class/
It's becoming increasingly rare for airlines to configure their planes with first class. However most (possibly all?) A380s were or are configured with first class, making direct comparisons more difficult.
Whether first-class exists on the (10 years older) 777 is neither here nor there.
Just a few weeks ago here on hn there was a discussion about this. Someone claimed the reasons A380 has poorer fuel economy per pax than A350 or B787 are
- older design with less usage of lightweight composites.
- older engine design.
- wing design constrained by need to fit within 80m box (size of airport gate apparently).
- wing design optimized for a lengthened variant (that was never realised).
Now, composite planes are a different story. I doubt there's any value in scrap carbon fiber.
They’d also be drained of all fluids. For planes in storage to be used again later, they fill all the fuel, hydraulic, etc. lines with special liquids to keep them preserved. So it’d be at least a week’s work for a team to get a stored plane going.
Could I buy one to have in my backyard?
Any idea on price?
Unless a cargo blimp can take it. Do such things exist?
And it’s probably being blocked in by other planes. Those desert boneyards don’t park planes with random access in mind.
edit: hmm, looked into it for a minute, and while it has been done, it doesn't sound very popular at the moment due to cost: http://www.aircargopedia.com/passengertofreightpg.htm https://centreforaviation.com/analysis/reports/air-cargo-boo...
https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/a380-hi-fly-auxilary-frei...
I guess they meant "aren't".
Moreover, as a passenger I want point-to-point air service at a convenient time. This is possible with smaller airplanes. Big plane requires funneling passengers to some big gateway airport so they can fill the gigantic plane. That requires spending time in airports. Not interested.
If the nostalgia is that there's something elite about a big plane: Gordon Gekko didn't fly around in a 747.
There's a reason these planes are obsolete. Planes like the 737 have democratized air travel and made it affordable for everyone. That's a much bigger achievement than the 747 will ever be. And I'll take the convenient frequent long-distance service that narrow-body planes offer (US mainland to Hawaii on a 737? Amazing!) over a 747 any day. A curving staircase on an airplane just doesn't scream "cool" to me.
When it first entered service in the 70s, the 747 was the aircraft that democratized travel in its time. Its massive capacity cut ticket prices in half while its range enabled new direct flights.
It's also this engineering marvel. The 747 dwarfed its next closest competitor in size and was not only the first double decker, but also the first widebody plane ever introduced. Engineers in the 60s created it with their pre-CAD tools and modern aircraft are built on their work.
Even though the economics of the plane were terrible, many airlines still flew it because it was such a massive leap forward in progress. Even today, it stands out at airports as a truly iconic design among the other fairly homogenous planes.
While the 747 no longer really fits into today's economic environment, it's still fondly remembered for its role in getting us here.
Something my dad told be about that plane: "If you took all the drawings required to design the 747, and put them in a 747, it would never get off the ground."
He worked at Boeing in the early 60s, and had a lot of cool stories about how the place ran. Traffic signals synced to the shift changes (on 7-minute intervals) for all employees at the plant. The insane process efficiency required to use a pencil and paper to design a project that complex. Etc.
Here are a few photos from my Lufthansa first class experience.
https://www.instagram.com/p/B00TFMcHA4a/?igshid=caikqjatjldk
The photos are:
- the famous rubber duckies from the Lufthansa First Class lounge in Frankfurt. They have private bathrooms with full baths that you can use.
- the obligatory outside-by-the-jet photo that you can take when they pick you up in a luxury car on the tarmac (not that white one)
- Seat 1K on a LH 747-800
- The Porsche that they pick you up in when you're changing flights or going to the lounge.
Now I understand some other airlines have better offerings than BA, and if you fly first class (I think for the same flight it was roughly 8x more) it's going to be a different story, but at the end of the day you are still just flying A to B.
The best part was probably the lounge where I had the connection, but I only had 1 1/2 hours so didn't get to experience it much. However it wasn't really much more than a 4* hotel buffet.
If I could afford to drop $20k to fly first class whenever I feel like it, would I? Probably. Do I feel like I'm missing out on anything by not doing that? Nope.
How much more is it to fly in a private jet? I feel that would be a different story, given you can schedule it so it picks you up whenever is convenient for you.
Business class is nice because you can sleep on a lie flat, which is the only thing I care about on an 11 hour flight.
Personally I hope I'll never have to fly across planet in economy, but also wouldn't mind flying in bunk bed either. It's sitting up for 26-30 hours or so that kills me.
6 bunks are not going to be enough for 300-400 passengers tho.
In a recent hn thread about private jets, someone was saying that unless you go all out on a private jet, the experience is almost certainly going to be worse than flying commercial. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23732841
...but, for about $3000-5000, you can experience this on a transatlantic flight. Where else can someone in the upper middle class save their pennies and get to live like royalty for a day? It's a pretty amazing thing.
Well, it _was_ an amazing thing. It's possible that the era of showers and A380s and maybe even international first class as we knew it is gone forever.
Here's what you could get for $3000 if you are ready to be flexible on travel dates and have a knack for obsessive pouring-over of schedules:
https://flickr.com/photos/69697531@N00/sets/7215770666398705...
I’m missing out.
A full bath? Wow, English public housing units commonly include a full bath (and 'private bathroom').
Ride in a Porsche? Truly not a big deal.
Air travel should be treated with a Spartan mindset in my opinion. Forget all the fake trappings of luxury which are much better supplied (and enjoyed) on the ground. Forget the fake 'fine dining' which again is easily surpassed in any half decent restaurant on the ground. Easy to go that length of time without needing to eat. The only focus you should have with air travel is safety, environmental comfort (quality of air supply, air pressure, noise) and non-crowdedness. All the rest is, frankly, performance art to distract the easily distracted.
That Porsche that picked me up? I landed late and was about to miss my connection to Italy. No problem. The driver told me he could hold the flight or reschedule me for later and bring me to the First Class lounge to pass the time. He picked up his phone and everything was handled. Zero stress.
Clearing EU immigration was a cinch. When I flew biz class into Lisbon the previous summer, I waited 4 hours in line in a sweltering terminal to clear. With Lufthansa First, the Porsche driver drove me to what looked like a security kiosk. We got out of the car, a woman stamped my passport, and we were back in the car in seconds. That's what you pay for, not the champagne and caviar.
I'm not an aeronautic engineer so I can't explain why but the ride was always smooth on 747s even in otherwise non-ideal conditions. I've flown the 787 since then and I don't even think it handles as well, but not enough data. I will miss it.
Edit: realised it was probably Garuda, but if it was recent it's still not a 747 - they don't have any anymore - it would be a 777.
It's a very cool system though!
I do know however that they are used symmetrically as part of Boeing's "cruise flaps system", which dynamically adjusts all of the control surfaces to optimize wing camber for weight, speed, altitude etc at cruise. Not sure if it's standard equipment.
Really all the planes are similar and kind of boring unless you fly an old Russian one.
“Only negative is that it is all so over the top - wife and I more comfortable in biz or e+”
Odd thing is I thought the 747 was usually configured with biz class upstairs (I got a biz upgrade on a SIN->DPS flight many years ago and flew upstairs) and first class in the front of the main level, so maybe they weren't talking about first class. Or perhaps some airlines have/had 747s with first upstairs.
I can relate. Flew A380 in biz with family London to Singapore, 4 seats across the middle, 9 mo old on the outside, then wife, then 3 yr, then me. Great flight
A month later we flew onto Sydney, but there were no Business seats left, instead we had to fly in First. My seat was dirty, during turbulence the pursar woke us and told us we had to remove our sleeping child from his nice safe airline approved car seat (which he'd flown in from London to Singapore) and put him our our lap.
Haven't flown BA F since, or flown them with family, and only taken 18 BA flights in 4 years since then. The 4 years before then I'd taken 243.
Amazing how one bad experience and the inability to get a simple apology can shift your buying habits.
This is due to simple laws of physics, really: fuel consumption grows with the exposed surface of the plane (roughly growing with the square of its size), while the size of the fuel tanks grows according to the volume (roughly the cube of the plane size). Hence small planes for short trips, big planes for long trips, and very big planes for very long trips. Of course advances in efficiency allows for smaller planes to go further, hence why the A380 failed, the 777X is failing, and even the A350-1000 is having a hard time.
Personaly I find flying on 737 or A320 a pretty horrid experience: 6 seats for one aisle, versus 9 seats (787 or A350) for two aisles in a wide-body. I like walking around, and don't care for windows though, so I guess it's a matter of taste.
It was the symbol of an era. The current era is objectively better -- you're not wrong -- but while nostalgia isn't necessarily rational, it's not irrational either.
Always loved flying a380s
I used upstairs a lot. It was nice. Side bins, and quieter.
Upstairs on a 380 is different. The nearest comparator is the Emirates lounge bar up the back.
Also, glass windscreens are a liability - I imagine damage caused by FOD impact kicked-up on the runway during takeoff to a glass nose would be far more expensive than whatever material they use today is.
Just on this point, there are plenty of people who live near the gigantic airports (like LHR), who experience the big aircraft without connections.
I agree with the middle seat part, after being stuck on an overseas Air India flight with babies on both sides. I just assumed it was bigger because they want to pack more in for long flights.
Smaller plane = better. At least for less close contact, which will be valued more with recent events.
Perhaps. But flying business class in the upper deck is definitely not cattle car material.
Top deck on an A380, whilst a far more comfortable experience with the lower noise and better air, doesn't quite compare.
My understanding is that many (most?) airlines use a leasing company to "hold" their physical inventory. If this is the case is this really just notice that they are going to break all their leases?
I also wonder, given that the 747 has been EOL'd by Boeing as well, how much one can recover by 'parting out' these 28 planes. Will they live on like the DC-3 did as a 'third party' airline plane or are they just too big to be useful in that way? Could make for a heck of a fire fighting fleet I suppose.
You can have your own 747 for $12.5M, flight hour operating costs not so friendly.
https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/810282...
Alternatively, this one will run you $275M+ https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/23001/qatari-royal-fli...
Managed to get one transatlantic Lufthansa 748 flight - horrible experience, seats incredibly cramped. And one transatlantic Air France 388 - got middle seat, but with wall in front = lot of legroom, + alcohol for free = overall pleasant flight :-)
- Air China
- Air India
- Asiana
- China Airlines
- Korean
- Lufthansa
- Rossiya
- Thai
But coming from STL the good flights was fly to SLC and then hop in with Delta. Seemed like a lot of places aggregated at a hub and took one giant plane in a day.
The upstairs business class cabin on the -400 was also larger (more people flying) if I remember correctly. A lot less people fly first than business.
In first you are ahead of the front wheels, so when turning during taxi, it’s quite an odd sensation.
I guess this looks like magnificent news to flight-shamers and climate-change activists.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Cook_Group#2019:_Final_...
We returned from Baltimore on a 767, immediate response "It's a bit shabby". which even compared with a 747 was entirely accurate.
I still prefer flying out of Baltimore though, much nicer airport, and I seem to get upgraded (either using miles or operational) every time. They've got 787s on the route now - was supposed to fly there this year just as the ban was brought in.
In the last few years I've been on a few big Airbus planes going to the mideast or the UK; they're nice. But they're not the icons that the 747 was.
The speed. They fly at 580mph cruising. The others are around 550mph. I confirmed this in the IFE.
Cabin pressure. It was higher than the 777 and A380. It just felt better and less headache inducing.
Upper deck. I’m going to miss club world. We travel as a family and it felt so intimate being able to sit together and not packed in like tuna.
Now is seems like there will be no 747 passenger flights anymore and even fate of A380 is under huge question
It comes right after the leader of the opposition highlighted during PMQs that BA have forced new, worse contracts on 30,000 staff
This surprises me. Surely they could be sold or used at cargo planes?