callumconroydub
Topic Author
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2015 8:48 pm

Fate of the 747's

Sat Apr 22, 2017 11:16 pm

Here is a question:

Are all the 747-100's gone now? Why?

I don't see 747-300's around much anymore. Why?

Thought they were great old planes...
 
ASQ400
Posts: 342
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2017 12:21 am

Re: Fate of the 747's

Sat Apr 22, 2017 11:28 pm

Part of that stems from the times when the 747 was built.
When the 747 was devised in the 70's, before ETOPS, Twinjets had to stay within 60 minutes' distance (with one engine running) of a suitable airport, for fear of an engine failing, which was more common then. Quads and Trijets were the mainstays of cross-Ocean flights. Airlines also tended in general towards the hub-and-spoke model, which called for big aircraft on the long routes between hubs.

With the advent of ETOPS and the 777, the 747 was no longer king of ocean-crossing. The 777 is a good deal cheaper to fly per passenger-mile, and a lot easier to maintain. The 747s from the 90s onwards began to be used on routes where high capacity was actually needed, as opposed to anything long. This, I assume, created a surplus, which is why there are very few 747-100/200/300 out there.
The 767, 777, and especially the 787 today also make the point-to-point model more economical for long distances, which reduces the number of high-capacity routes where the 747 (as well as the A340 and A380) are warranted.
TLV, BRU, ZRH, CDG, FRA, EWR, JFK, DEN, SFO, AUS, RNO, SEA, YYC, YYZ, IAH, ATL, IAD, DCA, ORD, SJC, SNA
 
callumconroydub
Topic Author
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2015 8:48 pm

Re: Fate of the 747's

Sat Apr 22, 2017 11:31 pm

Are there any airworthy 747-100's in service today?
 
ASQ400
Posts: 342
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2017 12:21 am

Re: Fate of the 747's

Sat Apr 22, 2017 11:32 pm

callumconroydub wrote:
Are there any airworthy 747-100's in service today?

Nope. Iran Air got rid of the last one in 2014
TLV, BRU, ZRH, CDG, FRA, EWR, JFK, DEN, SFO, AUS, RNO, SEA, YYC, YYZ, IAH, ATL, IAD, DCA, ORD, SJC, SNA
 
callumconroydub
Topic Author
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2015 8:48 pm

Re: Fate of the 747's

Sat Apr 22, 2017 11:40 pm

Is there still 741 freighters?
 
ASQ400
Posts: 342
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2017 12:21 am

Re: Fate of the 747's

Sat Apr 22, 2017 11:41 pm

callumconroydub wrote:
Is there still 741 freighters?

There was never a freighter variant of the 741.
TLV, BRU, ZRH, CDG, FRA, EWR, JFK, DEN, SFO, AUS, RNO, SEA, YYC, YYZ, IAH, ATL, IAD, DCA, ORD, SJC, SNA
 
callumconroydub
Topic Author
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2015 8:48 pm

Re: Fate of the 747's

Sat Apr 22, 2017 11:43 pm

So, the 741, effectively, doesn't exist anymore? Where they not brilliant planes?
 
TNST3B
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:09 am

Re: Fate of the 747's

Sat Apr 22, 2017 11:47 pm

callumconroydub wrote:
So, the 741, effectively, doesn't exist anymore? Where they not brilliant planes?


They were fine for their day, just obsolete now.
 
ASQ400
Posts: 342
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2017 12:21 am

Re: Fate of the 747's

Sat Apr 22, 2017 11:49 pm

callumconroydub wrote:
So, the 741, effectively, doesn't exist anymore? Where they not brilliant planes?

As I explained, there were too many 747s around by the 2000's.
The oldest, and therefore crappiest, 747s were the first to die, and so the 741 met its end.

Regardless of how good an airplane was in its time, it gets outdated eventually.

The 742/744 were the successful models, anyway.
TLV, BRU, ZRH, CDG, FRA, EWR, JFK, DEN, SFO, AUS, RNO, SEA, YYC, YYZ, IAH, ATL, IAD, DCA, ORD, SJC, SNA
 
User avatar
Spacepope
Posts: 4479
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

Re: Fate of the 747's

Sat Apr 22, 2017 11:51 pm

ASQ400 wrote:
callumconroydub wrote:
Is there still 741 freighters?

There was never a freighter variant of the 741.


UPS operated 8 741 freighters (converted). That is if you count the SRs as -100s.
The last of the famous international playboys
 
xjetflyer2001
Posts: 259
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2016 6:20 pm

Re: Fate of the 747's

Sun Apr 23, 2017 12:12 am

Spacepope wrote:
ASQ400 wrote:
callumconroydub wrote:
Is there still 741 freighters?

There was never a freighter variant of the 741.


UPS operated 8 741 freighters (converted). That is if you count the SRs as -100s.


I have a photo of a UPS 747 N691UP which shows as LN: 7, was that a converted 747-100?
 
User avatar
Channex757
Posts: 2366
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:07 am

Re: Fate of the 747's

Sun Apr 23, 2017 12:27 am

callumconroydub wrote:
Here is a question:

Are all the 747-100's gone now? Why?

I don't see 747-300's around much anymore. Why?

Thought they were great old planes...

That's your answer, great OLD planes.

Not only do they guzzle fuel compared to today's twinjets, it is increasingly hard to support them with spares and consumables. There will be very few early model JT9D engines that are suitable for a 747-100 with some meat left on the bone. Systems all throughout the aircraft wear out or need replacements, and the spares pool just isn't there any more.

Same goes for the 747-300; operators retired them and better value 747-400s came on to the market so those aircraft became unwanted and obsolete. Many of them ended up as freighters as their engines were more powerful, but again better aircraft came onto the market and the old ladies went to the desert. The converted 747-300F was a good load hauler but the 747-400F is much, much better.
 
Cunard
Posts: 2512
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2016 6:45 pm

Re: Fate of the 747's

Sun Apr 23, 2017 12:52 am

I can't honestly believe this is being discussed, does the OP see many cars on the road that are nearly fifty years vintage, no because there obsolete just like the aircraft he is questioning, it's quite obvious at the end of the day.
94 Countries, 327 Destinations Worldwide, 32 Airlines, 29 Aircraft Types, 182 Airports, 335 Flights.
 
jimatkins
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 1:57 pm

Re: Fate of the 747's

Sun Apr 23, 2017 12:53 am

Don't -300s have a 3 person crew? 400s are 2 person crew, cheaper right off the bat.
 
ASQ400
Posts: 342
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2017 12:21 am

Re: Fate of the 747's

Sun Apr 23, 2017 12:57 am

jimatkins wrote:
Don't -300s have a 3 person crew? 400s are 2 person crew, cheaper right off the bat.

Yeah. The 400s are more efficient than their predecessors in almost every way, which is only natural given the massive age gap between them
TLV, BRU, ZRH, CDG, FRA, EWR, JFK, DEN, SFO, AUS, RNO, SEA, YYC, YYZ, IAH, ATL, IAD, DCA, ORD, SJC, SNA
 
RetiredWeasel
Posts: 741
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2014 8:16 pm

Re: Fate of the 747's

Sun Apr 23, 2017 1:01 am

jimatkins wrote:
Don't -300s have a 3 person crew? 400s are 2 person crew, cheaper right off the bat.


As discussed in several other threads, the 400 (US Regs) required a third pilot in flights over 8 hours which was usually the case. So the decrease in crew costs were marginal.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3418
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: Fate of the 747's

Sun Apr 23, 2017 1:02 am

ASQ400 wrote:
Part of that stems from the times when the 747 was built.
When the 747 was devised in the 70's, before ETOPS, Twinjets had to stay within 60 minutes' distance (with one engine running) of a suitable airport, for fear of an engine failing, which was more common then. Quads and Trijets were the mainstays of cross-Ocean flights. Airlines also tended in general towards the hub-and-spoke model, which called for big aircraft on the long routes between hubs.

With the advent of ETOPS and the 777, the 747 was no longer king of ocean-crossing. The 777 is a good deal cheaper to fly per passenger-mile, and a lot easier to maintain. The 747s from the 90s onwards began to be used on routes where high capacity was actually needed, as opposed to anything long. This, I assume, created a surplus, which is why there are very few 747-100/200/300 out there.
The 767, 777, and especially the 787 today also make the point-to-point model more economical for long distances, which reduces the number of high-capacity routes where the 747 (as well as the A340 and A380) are warranted.


You left out that many 747 routes were too small for the 747s capacity. As such when smaller 767/777/A300/A330 aircraft could fly longer ETOPS routes the capacity was adjusted for demand. Airlines like Air New Zealand used them on routse where there were 50% or lower loads because 4 engines was required to fly the route and the L1011 & DC-10 did not always have the range.
 
ASQ400
Posts: 342
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2017 12:21 am

Re: Fate of the 747's

Sun Apr 23, 2017 1:10 am

rbavfan wrote:
ASQ400 wrote:
Part of that stems from the times when the 747 was built.
When the 747 was devised in the 70's, before ETOPS, Twinjets had to stay within 60 minutes' distance (with one engine running) of a suitable airport, for fear of an engine failing, which was more common then. Quads and Trijets were the mainstays of cross-Ocean flights. Airlines also tended in general towards the hub-and-spoke model, which called for big aircraft on the long routes between hubs.

With the advent of ETOPS and the 777, the 747 was no longer king of ocean-crossing. The 777 is a good deal cheaper to fly per passenger-mile, and a lot easier to maintain. The 747s from the 90s onwards began to be used on routes where high capacity was actually needed, as opposed to anything long. This, I assume, created a surplus, which is why there are very few 747-100/200/300 out there.
The 767, 777, and especially the 787 today also make the point-to-point model more economical for long distances, which reduces the number of high-capacity routes where the 747 (as well as the A340 and A380) are warranted.


You left out that many 747 routes were too small for the 747s capacity. As such when smaller 767/777/A300/A330 aircraft could fly longer ETOPS routes the capacity was adjusted for demand. Airlines like Air New Zealand used them on routse where there were 50% or lower loads because 4 engines was required to fly the route and the L1011 & DC-10 did not always have the range.

I implied it by saying that the 747 post-ETOPS was only used where high capacity is actually needed, as opposed to just on long flights.
TLV, BRU, ZRH, CDG, FRA, EWR, JFK, DEN, SFO, AUS, RNO, SEA, YYC, YYZ, IAH, ATL, IAD, DCA, ORD, SJC, SNA
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 7122
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: Fate of the 747's

Sun Apr 23, 2017 2:02 am

rbavfan wrote:
ASQ400 wrote:
Part of that stems from the times when the 747 was built.
When the 747 was devised in the 70's, before ETOPS, Twinjets had to stay within 60 minutes' distance (with one engine running) of a suitable airport, for fear of an engine failing, which was more common then. Quads and Trijets were the mainstays of cross-Ocean flights. Airlines also tended in general towards the hub-and-spoke model, which called for big aircraft on the long routes between hubs.

With the advent of ETOPS and the 777, the 747 was no longer king of ocean-crossing. The 777 is a good deal cheaper to fly per passenger-mile, and a lot easier to maintain. The 747s from the 90s onwards began to be used on routes where high capacity was actually needed, as opposed to anything long. This, I assume, created a surplus, which is why there are very few 747-100/200/300 out there.
The 767, 777, and especially the 787 today also make the point-to-point model more economical for long distances, which reduces the number of high-capacity routes where the 747 (as well as the A340 and A380) are warranted.


You left out that many 747 routes were too small for the 747s capacity. As such when smaller 767/777/A300/A330 aircraft could fly longer ETOPS routes the capacity was adjusted for demand. Airlines like Air New Zealand used them on routse where there were 50% or lower loads because 4 engines was required to fly the route and the L1011 & DC-10 did not always have the range.


Curious, where did you hear and what were these routes that NZ flew 747's with 50% or lower loads?
 
User avatar
BasilFawlty
Posts: 915
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 11:23 am

Re: Fate of the 747's

Sun Apr 23, 2017 2:50 am

ASQ400 wrote:
callumconroydub wrote:
Are there any airworthy 747-100's in service today?

Nope. Iran Air got rid of the last one in 2014

Iran Air Force is still operating several 747-100's.
'Every year donkeys and mules kill more people than plane crashes'
 
ASQ400
Posts: 342
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2017 12:21 am

Re: Fate of the 747's

Sun Apr 23, 2017 3:31 am

BasilFawlty wrote:
ASQ400 wrote:
callumconroydub wrote:
Are there any airworthy 747-100's in service today?

Nope. Iran Air got rid of the last one in 2014

Iran Air Force is still operating several 747-100's.

Wiki says they're all gone.
TLV, BRU, ZRH, CDG, FRA, EWR, JFK, DEN, SFO, AUS, RNO, SEA, YYC, YYZ, IAH, ATL, IAD, DCA, ORD, SJC, SNA
 
User avatar
afterburner
Posts: 1408
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 11:38 am

Re: Fate of the 747's

Sun Apr 23, 2017 3:57 am

ASQ400 wrote:
The 767, 777, and especially the 787 today also make the point-to-point model more economical for long distances,

You forgot to include A330 and A350. :)
 
ASQ400
Posts: 342
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2017 12:21 am

Re: Fate of the 747's

Sun Apr 23, 2017 4:01 am

afterburner wrote:
ASQ400 wrote:
The 767, 777, and especially the 787 today also make the point-to-point model more economical for long distances,

You forgot to include A330 and A350. :)

A330 too, but A350 is more of a response to the 787 than a true innovation.
TLV, BRU, ZRH, CDG, FRA, EWR, JFK, DEN, SFO, AUS, RNO, SEA, YYC, YYZ, IAH, ATL, IAD, DCA, ORD, SJC, SNA
 
UA444
Posts: 2788
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 7:03 am

Re: Fate of the 747's

Sun Apr 23, 2017 6:49 am

GE still has a 741 test bed and the Iranian Air Force has a few. Line number 5, a -131 is still active.
 
User avatar
CanadaFair
Posts: 1120
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2016 5:22 pm

Re: Fate of the 747's

Sun Apr 23, 2017 9:47 am

callumconroydub wrote:
Here is a question:

Are all the 747-100's gone now? Why?

I don't see 747-300's around much anymore. Why?

Thought they were great old planes...


Still in use:

747-100

GE test bed - 1
Iranian Air Force - 6

747-300

AviaTrans Export Cargo - 1
Mahan Air - 1
Saudi Government - 1
Max Air - 2
 
vv701
Posts: 5895
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

Re: Fate of the 747's

Sun Apr 23, 2017 10:37 am

741 CN 20270, LN 169, was originally operated by BOAC and then BA as G-BNWH. It was retired in June 1989 and sold by its lessor, AAR Aircraft Leasing, to Sandia National Laboratories. It was then ferried to ABQ in early June '89. Its British registration was cancelled on 18 June. As I can find no reference to any US registration that could have been its last flight.

However the last I saw of it was a photo taken at ABQ in April 2013. At that time it had had its engines and rudder removed but carried 'FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION' and 'FAA/AANC Testbed Aircraft' titling with an FAA tail logo. This suggests it may have been flown. But perhaps it was a ground handling or emergency evacuation test bed?

Anyone know anything more? Is it still at ABQ or has it been broken up?.
 
G-CIVP
Posts: 1561
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001 6:38 am

Re: Fate of the 747's

Sun Apr 23, 2017 10:46 am

vv701 wrote:
741 CN 20270, LN 169, was originally operated by BOAC and then BA as G-BNWH.


Typo! G-AWNH
 
User avatar
Channex757
Posts: 2366
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:07 am

Re: Fate of the 747's

Sun Apr 23, 2017 11:33 am

RetiredWeasel wrote:
jimatkins wrote:
Don't -300s have a 3 person crew? 400s are 2 person crew, cheaper right off the bat.


As discussed in several other threads, the 400 (US Regs) required a third pilot in flights over 8 hours which was usually the case. So the decrease in crew costs were marginal.

I think the reference to 3 person crew was actually the need for a flight engineer on the -300
 
User avatar
Channex757
Posts: 2366
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:07 am

Re: Fate of the 747's

Sun Apr 23, 2017 11:34 am

vv701 wrote:
741 CN 20270, LN 169, was originally operated by BOAC and then BA as G-BNWH. It was retired in June 1989 and sold by its lessor, AAR Aircraft Leasing, to Sandia National Laboratories. It was then ferried to ABQ in early June '89. Its British registration was cancelled on 18 June. As I can find no reference to any US registration that could have been its last flight.

However the last I saw of it was a photo taken at ABQ in April 2013. At that time it had had its engines and rudder removed but carried 'FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION' and 'FAA/AANC Testbed Aircraft' titling with an FAA tail logo. This suggests it may have been flown. But perhaps it was a ground handling or emergency evacuation test bed?

Anyone know anything more? Is it still at ABQ or has it been broken up?.

Wasn't this the aircraft being used for studies into ageing aircraft, strangely enough?
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3887
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

Re: Fate of the 747's

Sun Apr 23, 2017 3:12 pm

ASQ400 wrote:
Part of that stems from the times when the 747 was built.
When the 747 was devised in the 70's, before ETOPS, Twinjets had to stay within 60 minutes' distance (with one engine running) of a suitable airport, for fear of an engine failing, which was more common then. Quads and Trijets were the mainstays of cross-Ocean flights. Airlines also tended in general towards the hub-and-spoke model, which called for big aircraft on the long routes between hubs.

With the advent of ETOPS and the 777, the 747 was no longer king of ocean-crossing. The 777 is a good deal cheaper to fly per passenger-mile, and a lot easier to maintain. The 747s from the 90s onwards began to be used on routes where high capacity was actually needed, as opposed to anything long. This, I assume, created a surplus, which is why there are very few 747-100/200/300 out there.
The 767, 777, and especially the 787 today also make the point-to-point model more economical for long distances, which reduces the number of high-capacity routes where the 747 (as well as the A340 and A380) are warranted.


Don't you mean "When the 747 was devised in the 60's...."?

The 747-100 first flew in February 1969 and EIS was in January 1970.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
RetiredWeasel
Posts: 741
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2014 8:16 pm

Re: Fate of the 747's

Sun Apr 23, 2017 3:41 pm

Channex757 wrote:
RetiredWeasel wrote:
jimatkins wrote:
Don't -300s have a 3 person crew? 400s are 2 person crew, cheaper right off the bat.


As discussed in several other threads, the 400 (US Regs) required a third pilot in flights over 8 hours which was usually the case. So the decrease in crew costs were marginal.

I think the reference to 3 person crew was actually the need for a flight engineer on the -300


Maybe I'm wasn't too clear. Flights between 8 and 12 hours required 3 aviators whether it was 2 pilots and an FE (200,300), or 3 pilots (400). This applied to 200's and 400's. Since they were paid by the hour, the cost difference (paying 3 aviators) was marginal. With flights over 12 hours things got more complicated regarding crew augmentation on the 200. On flights less than 8 hours, of course the 400 cockpit crew cost was probably less because the airline only had to pay 2 aviators (pilots).
 
ASQ400
Posts: 342
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2017 12:21 am

Re: Fate of the 747's

Sun Apr 23, 2017 3:50 pm

OldAeroGuy wrote:
ASQ400 wrote:
Part of that stems from the times when the 747 was built.
When the 747 was devised in the 70's, before ETOPS, Twinjets had to stay within 60 minutes' distance (with one engine running) of a suitable airport, for fear of an engine failing, which was more common then. Quads and Trijets were the mainstays of cross-Ocean flights. Airlines also tended in general towards the hub-and-spoke model, which called for big aircraft on the long routes between hubs.

With the advent of ETOPS and the 777, the 747 was no longer king of ocean-crossing. The 777 is a good deal cheaper to fly per passenger-mile, and a lot easier to maintain. The 747s from the 90s onwards began to be used on routes where high capacity was actually needed, as opposed to anything long. This, I assume, created a surplus, which is why there are very few 747-100/200/300 out there.
The 767, 777, and especially the 787 today also make the point-to-point model more economical for long distances, which reduces the number of high-capacity routes where the 747 (as well as the A340 and A380) are warranted.


Don't you mean "When the 747 was devised in the 60's...."?

The 747-100 first flew in February 1969 and EIS was in January 1970.

As always, my memory goes shoddy. LOL
TLV, BRU, ZRH, CDG, FRA, EWR, JFK, DEN, SFO, AUS, RNO, SEA, YYC, YYZ, IAH, ATL, IAD, DCA, ORD, SJC, SNA

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos