United to Retire all 747s by 2018

[KORDATC 80]

Just heard United is planning to retire the last of their 747s by early 2018. Delta is retiring theirs by 2017. Sad to think that we will no longer see 747s in passenger service here in the US. On the bright side though, United is planning to keep their 767s in service for the foreseeable future. (Still have my fingers crossed for a PMDG 767.) Anyways, I think I'm going to start saving up for a ticket on that last flight whenever it may be.

[z06z33 763]

Airlines don't like 4 engines,more maintenance and more fuel. The airlines forget the positives of having 4 engines namely safety. You loose an engine on 777 on a polar route and your gonna be spending a night freezing in Siberia,with a 747 you'll be at your destination sipping cocktails. My dad flew 747-400s for United and still thinks to this day that trusting two engines to get you there is stupid and honestly I agree with him....there is a reason that the current and next Airforce One has/will have 4 engines and that is reliability.

[PHXMD-11 86]

You loose an engine on 777 on a polar route and your gonna be spending a night freezing in Siberia,with a 747 you'll be at your destination sipping cocktails.

 

You loose an engine on a BA 744 and you'll be swimming in the Atlantic. Refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_268 Four engines does not necessairly mean safer.

 

 

there is a reason that the current and Airforce One has/will have 4 engines and that is reliability.

 

No it was political. The contest for a replacement of the VC-25 was the Boeing 747-8 and the Airbus A380. Boeing won the order. Why would the President of the United States of America fly on an aircraft manufactured by a French-based company?

[PMDG777 231]

Airlines don't like 4 engines,more maintenance and more fuel. The airlines forget the positives of having 4 engines namely safety. You loose an engine on 777 on a polar route and your gonna be spending a night freezing in Siberia,with a 747 you'll be at your destination sipping cocktails. My dad flew 747-400s for United and still thinks to this day that trusting two engines to get you there is stupid and honestly I agree with him....there is a reason that the current and next Airforce One has/will have 4 engines and that is reliability.

 

Airlines don't like four engines? Ask Emirates with their 74 A380s and another 66 on order. Ask any airline with multiple A380s. It's one of the most successful aircraft available today. There are 180 A380s in the sky.

 

You lose an engine on a 777 and ETOPS takes you up to 6 hours further, in most cases taking you to your destination. Having four engines is not necessarily safer. Twin-engine aircraft are more than capable of flying on one engine. More engines isn't better, no matter what any ex-United pilot tells me. Again, the success of the 777 shows otherwise.

[z06z33 763]

You loose an engine on a BA 744 and you'll be swimming in the Atlantic. Refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_268 Four engines does not necessairly mean safer.

 

 

 

 

No it was political. The contest for a replacement of the VC-25 was the Boeing 747-8 and the Airbus A380. Boeing won the order. Why would the President of the United States of America fly on an aircraft manufactured by a French-based company?

The A380 has 4 engines aswell. They could have bought a 777 or 787 if they wanted to stick with Boeing but they wanted a 4 engine jet for safety

Airlines don't like four engines? Ask Emirates with their 74 A380s and another 66 on order. Ask any airline with multiple A380s. It's one of the most successful aircraft available today. There are 180 A380s in the sky.

 

You lose an engine on a 777 and ETOPS takes you up to 6 hours further, in most cases taking you to your destination. Having four engines is not necessarily safer. Twin-engine aircraft are more than capable of flying on one engine. More engines isn't better, no matter what any ex-United pilot tells me. Again, the success of the 777 shows otherwise.

The 777 is successful because it's economical to operate not safer or better than a 747. I like the 777 but I also like the feeling of looking out and seeing two Pratts on each wing. Sorry but I will continue to belive the person who's been flying for 50 years and has well over 30,000 hours before I belive a guy on a flight sim board. I'm a real world pilot myself and I don't fly single engine over water or mountains yes people do it everyday but people also get killed doing it.

[PMDG777 231]

 

 

The A380 has 4 engines aswell. They could have bought a 777 or 787 if they wanted to stick with Boeing but they wanted a 4 engine jet for safety

 

http://www.defenseone.com/politics/2015/02/buying-new-air-force-one-complicated/104220/

 

I can just see POTUS rocking up in a 787.

 

 

 

The 777 is successful because it's economical to operate not safer or better than a 747. I like the 777 but I also like the feeling of looking out and seeing two Pratts on each wing.

 

You speak complete nonsense with no basis for what you're saying. Did you know a 747-8 has an etops rating of 330 minutes, but the A350 has an etops rating of 370 minutes. Go figure.

[z06z33 763]

http://www.defenseone.com/politics/2015/02/buying-new-air-force-one-complicated/104220/

 

I can just see POTUS rocking up in a 787.

 

 

 

You speak complete nonsense with no basis for what you're saying. Did you know a 747-8 has an etops rating of 330 minutes, but the A350 has an etops rating of 370 minutes. Go figure.

If only one fails your in great shape but if two fail on a 777 or other twinjet your swimming. It does happen ask Sully

[PMDG777 231]

Sorry but I will continue to belive the person who's been flying for 50 years and has well over 30,000 hours before I belive a guy on a flight sim board. 

 

The older generation of pilots always believe more engines are better because back in their day it was. It's the same story with technology. Just because you think it doesn't make it right.

 

 

 

I'm a real world pilot myself and I don't fly single engine over water or mountains yes people do it everyday but people also get killed doing it.

 

Your mediocre knowledge on aircraft reliability plus the fact you think as a pilot (literally a pawn in an airlines game) is allowed to pick and choose what aircraft type you fly and what you're allowed to fly over tells me you're no pilot.

If only one fails your in great shape but if two fail on a 777 or other twinjet your swimming. It does happen ask Sully

 

The whole reasoning behind ETOPS is that the probability of two engines failing in cruise is so slim. Bird strikes don't happen at cruising altitude on a 777. Had Sully been flying a 747 that day, he still would have ended in the hudson.

[z06z33 763]

The older generation of pilots always believe more engines are better because back in their day it was. It's the same story with technology. Just because you think it doesn't make it right.

 

 

 

Your mediocre knowledge on aircraft reliability plus the fact you think as a pilot (literally a pawn in an airlines game) is allowed to pick and choose what aircraft type you fly and what you're allowed to fly over tells me you're no pilot.

 

 

Bird strikes don't happen at cruising altitude on a 777. Had Sully been flying a 747 that day, he still would have ended in the hudson.

Actually Geese have been spotted at over 30,000 feet. My point is there are times when you will loose two of your engines rare yes but it does happen. I don't think there is anything wrong with having some extra engines for just incase.

[PMDG777 231]

Actually Geese have been spotted at over 30,000 feet. My point is there are times when you will loose two of your engines rare yes but it does happen. I don't think there is anything wrong with having some extra engines for just incase.

 

And most aircraft that have bird strikes don't lose all engines. Hence why Cactus 1549 was such a spectacle because it was such a rare occurrence. The difference in probability between 2 engines failing on a twin engine, and four failing on a four engine aircraft is extremely marginal, because both probabilities are so small to begin with.

[Ralgh 43]

Emirates has so many A380s because they are one of if not the most heavily subsidized airlines.

 

I did a report on ETOPS when I was in college. At least at that time in every case where a jet airliner lost all of its engines it lost them for the same reason. The ones that come to my memory was a 747 in volcanic ash, an L-1011 where all three engines were missing O rings the led to loss of oil and a 767 that ran out of fuel. If I remember right since then an A330 has run out of fuel too. There had never been a twin engine jet airliner that lost both engines for different reasons and I believe that still holds true.

 

ETOPS is a numbers game. Modern jet engine reliability is so good that the governments and the airlines feel it's within the acceptable margin of risk to allow it. In fact I write this on my Maui layover. I've been flying our A321s over here for four months now so obviously I feel it's with my margin of risk too.

[WR269 367]

The choice of 2 vs 4 engines goes beyond ETOPS.

 

Emirates makes far more money in an A380 than a B777 because of the larger Premium and cargo capacity on CERTAIN ROUTES.

 

It is a case of horses for courses. The inverse occurs on thinner markets, the B777 makes more money than the A380.

 

And going back to original topic, both those models are more efficient than the old B744 which is why airlines are replacing it.

[KORDATC 80]

Whatever your views on them are, if you wanna fly on one for cheap before they retire, United will be flying them between SFO-ORD from March 3 - May 4. Last flight between ORD-SFO is May 5.

[jimmynes 7]

 

 

A380s. It's one of the most successful aircraft available today

 

No.. It's not.

[PMDG777 231]

No.. It's not.

 

How's that 747-8 going...oh wait. Barely delivered 100 and already scaling back production. Note I said one of. Not THE most. Sure it's not as successful as a 777 but it's never going to be, look at the extra costs of operating an A380 over a 777. But it's miles more successful than the 747-8, it's direct competitor.