AHC: Jumbo Jets Remain Common

kernals12

Banned
The days of the iconic Boeing 747 are numbered. Airlines are simply not buying this original jumbo jet, instead preferring smaller dual aisle planes, such as the Airbus A340 and Boeing's own 777. And Airbus is struggling to give away its A380, now admitting it will never recoup its R&D costs. Once these planes disappear, our airports will become drab fields of similar looking planes.
_4d198054-cedf-11e7-a40e-766ee48c25bf.jpg

So, how can we keep the jumbo jets flying? No 9/11 perhaps?
 
I think it has less to do with 9/11 and more to do with rising fuel costs and environmental concerns. I imagine if you can keep gas/oil prices low enough, then jumbo jets can remain economical.
 

kernals12

Banned
I think it has less to do with 9/11 and more to do with rising fuel costs and environmental concerns.
A jumbo jet will always be more fuel efficient passenger-for-passenger than a smaller jet, assuming all the seats are filled. Obviously 9/11 made it harder to fill all the seats.
 
Jumbo jets lock you into a small and inflexible set of highly competed routes that have enough traffic to support big planes. Between less competition and more convenience on point-to-point routes, you can charge passengers more which means the lower per seat efficiency of planes like the 787 and A350 is compensated for by the higher fares and higher load factor compared to a 747 or A380.
 

kernals12

Banned
Jumbo jets lock you into a small and inflexible set of highly competed routes that have enough traffic to support big planes. Between less competition and more convenience on point-to-point routes, you can charge passengers more which means the lower per seat efficiency of planes like the 787 and A350 is compensated for by the higher fares and higher load factor compared to a 747 or A380.
It worked well until roughly 15 years ago. McDonnell Douglas even wanted to build a jumbo jet, the MD-12, in the 90s.
 
Last edited:
A jumbo jet will always be more fuel efficient passenger-for-passenger than a smaller jet, assuming all the seats are filled. Obviously 9/11 made it harder to fill all the seats.

Actually, one need to take into account of aerodynamics of a larger and wider plane that need heavier engine with stronger thrust.
 
I think it has less to do with 9/11 and more to do with rising fuel costs and environmental concerns. I imagine if you can keep gas/oil prices low enough, then jumbo jets can remain economical.
Is it not more that twins can now do the same or at least very nearly for less? (ie B777 and A350)
 
The days of the iconic Boeing 747 are numbered. Airlines are simply not buying this original jumbo jet, instead preferring smaller dual aisle planes, such as the Airbus A340 and Boeing's own 777. And Airbus is struggling to give away its A380, now admitting it will never recoup its R&D costs. Once these planes disappear, our airports will become drab fields of similar looking planes.
View attachment 463172
So, how can we keep the jumbo jets flying? No 9/11 perhaps?
Keep the law requiring two engine planes to stay near land. There was a market for Jumbos because there was a legal barrier to two engine planes making trans-oceanic voyages.
 

kernals12

Banned
Keep the law requiring two engine planes to stay near land. There was a market for Jumbos because there was a legal barrier to two engine planes making trans-oceanic voyages.
Trijets filled that regulatory niche very nicely. The 747 was liked because of its very long range.
 

kernals12

Banned
Kinda, to my understanding they were never as common as their quad engine counterparts, nor were they as cheap and small as the planes driving the modern trend towards dual engine jets which limited their utility.
There's a fairly obvious solution here: a twin engine 747.

Trijets were pretty clearly just engineered for redundancy. Quadjets were needed for extra power.
 
Trijets were useful when high-bypass turbofans were limited to about 50k lbf thrust. Your typical 250-300 pax, 3-class airliner (400 pax in all-economy) flies on about 150k lbf, so you can do that with three 50k lbf engines. By 1990, engines were up to 75k lbf so the A330 and domestic 777 were possibilities.
 
Once twin engine jets were allowed for trans oceanic routes the era of the quad and trijet for passengers was over. The large twins combined efficient operation with the flexibility of more departures and multiple route parings.
Also Boeing originally expected the 747 to have a 7-10 year sales life as a passenger jet. After that it was expected they would be reduced to freight use (one of the reasons for the cockpit above the main deck) The original plan was that the Boeing 2707 (The SST) would become the primary passenger jet
 

kernals12

Banned
Actually, one need to take into account of aerodynamics of a larger and wider plane that need heavier engine with stronger thrust.
It's for the same reason why a bus is more fuel efficient than a car. Also, a larger plane needs proportionally less labor.
 

kernals12

Banned
Once twin engine jets were allowed for trans oceanic routes the era of the quad and trijet for passengers was over. The large twins combined efficient operation with the flexibility of more departures and multiple route parings.
Also Boeing originally expected the 747 to have a 7-10 year sales life as a passenger jet. After that it was expected they would be reduced to freight use (one of the reasons for the cockpit above the main deck) The original plan was that the Boeing 2707 (The SST) would become the primary passenger jet
That's not necessarily true, sales of the 747 remained strong into the 2000s
BT-AK109_BOEING_9U_20160727183606 (1).jpg
 
That's not necessarily true, sales of the 747 remained strong into the 2000s
View attachment 463254
I didn't say they didn't remain popular. I said the original plan by Boeing was that they would be quickly replaced by the SST. The 747 design team was actually the 'second string'' with the 'First Team' assigned to the SST. When the SST effort collapsed due to regulatory, fuel cost, and environmental problems the 747 became the star of the company and remained so for years.
 

kernals12

Banned
I did not realize how massive the 777X was. The larger version is one foot longer than the 747-8, and at 349 passengers in a 3 class configuration, it can carry 85% as many passengers as the 747. So maybe the jumbo jet era isn't really ending, it's just going to be much less stylish.
 
In many ways the major competition for the sale of new Boeing 747s are those already in service. As new highly fuel efficient geared fan engines enter the arena for twinjets, they become candidates for retrofit on jumbos, since they (four) will still fit under the the wings. I would not expect any effort to design-in a pair of high thrust engines (as had been proposed a while ago for the Convair 880/990 freighters) since the aerodynamics of the 747 become marginal with all the thrust on one side.

Its a shame that the excellent Lockheed 1011 has been largely retired and scrapped, since it was a quality aircraft, and could handle a pair of modern fans (possibly with a small present day engine in the tail in place of the RB for transocean ETOPS)

Dynasoar.
 
Top