United to Retire all 747s by 2018

[Steve Dra 7,579]

Kids!

My goodness....the topic of this post is about UA retiring its 747s....not who's 4 engine is better or if a twin is better than a quad.

All I know is that in my 54 years, I've not had a chance to ride on the "Queen" yet.  She's called the Queen for good reason, and no matter your personal preference, you can't argue she has been one of the...of not the most iconic airliner to date.

 

Thanks for the heads up Robert...I'll make sure I'll get a ride on a UA 747 before they're gone.

 

I just wish I had a chance to ride her on Pan Am, the airline that made the 747 a reality.  I am lucky enough (and old enough  ) to have ridden on a Pan Am 707 though, which was an awesome experience (and a UA & DAL DC8 which were also memorable flights).

Say what you will...but looking out over a wing and seeing 2 engines hanging out there just looks cool in my opinion, regardless of fuel economy or safety. :wink:

[iwebber 207]

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.

 

Errrrr, they diverted to Manchester... I suppose that's a bit like swimming but your feet don't get wet.

 

You're proving their point though, engine failure at 300ft and still managed to fly over 4500 nm to get everyone to within 20 mins of their original destination, would have never even been reported if the winds weren't so bad over the Atlantic. Like to see you do that in a twin...

 

I agree that doesn't necessarily mean they're safer but they have much more redundancy and can withstand more failures (particularly engine related) and continue safely than a twin.

 

Ian

[PMDG777 231]

Errrrr, they diverted to Manchester... I suppose that's a bit like swimming but your feet don't get wet.

 

You're proving their point though, engine failure at 300ft and still managed to fly over 4500 nm to get everyone to within 20 mins of their original destination, would have never even been reported if the winds weren't so bad over the Atlantic. Like to see you do that in a twin...

 

I agree that doesn't necessarily mean they're safer but they have much more redundancy and can withstand more failures (particularly engine related) and continue safely than a twin.

 

Ian

 

Could easily be done in a 777-200LR or 300ER on single engine. Difference is, they'd actually get to Heathrow. Either way pointless argument. That was 11 years ago. Flight safety has changed a lot since then. That would never happen today, the crew would turn around and land back at LAX.

[iwebber 207]

Could easily be done in a 777-200LR or 300ER on single engine. Difference is, they'd actually get to Heathrow. Either way pointless argument. That was 11 years ago. Flight safety has changed a lot since then. That would never happen today, the crew would turn around and land back at LAX.

 

No, an engine failure in a twin is a land at nearest suitable, they would have dumped fuel and returned to LAX.

 

And, No, according to the wiki article you quoted, "BA said they hadn't changed their procedures" so their flight continuation policy remains the same and even today a jumbo (or 380) would/could continue to destination on three engines (still 50% more than the 777 departed with).

 

Flight safety has improved and so has our evaluation of it, if a 777/330 can fly across the Atlantic on 2 engines a jumbo can get across it perfectly safely on 3.

[warbirds 555]

I know this is far from realistic but I flew RC for over 30 years and one time my 70 pound B-17 lost and engine and I did not know it until I landed. Flew most of the flight on three with no adverse input but it was an inside engine.

 

On the other hand my 200 pound C-47 lost an engine and I had to land straight ahead immediately no matter what because it became so sluggish and ready to fall out of the sky. One time my smaller 25 pound P-61 twin lost and engine and spun in immediately.

 

WWII bombers were mostly four engine versions to get to the target and, more importantly, to get home from the target so that thinking migrated into civil airliners of the day.

[PMDG777 231]

No, an engine failure in a twin is a land at nearest suitable, they would have dumped fuel and returned to LAX.

 

And, No, according to the wiki article you quoted, "BA said they hadn't changed their procedures" so their flight continuation policy remains the same and even today a jumbo (or 380) would/could continue to destination on three engines (still 50% more than the 777 departed with).

 

Flight safety has improved and so has our evaluation of it, if a 777/330 can fly across the Atlantic on 2 engines a jumbo can get across it perfectly safely on 3.

Firstly, I didn't quote the wiki article that was somebody else. Wikipedia isn't always true and they definitely don't know SOPs of BA. These days, if anything happens to an aircraft during takeoff or initial climb, it turns around. Whether it's four or two engined.

 

A 777/330 being able to cross the Atlantic on two engines doesn't mean a 747 can on three because it has more engines. A 747 is not a 777 with two extra engines, that's not how physics works. If it did work like that we'd have 6-8 engine passenger aircraft because it's safer right? It's a lot heavier, each engine produces much less thrust, and it's a lot more inefficient than a 777. Again, I go back to my point about ETOPS. ETOPS is all about reliability. How can a two engine aircraft have a higher ETOPS rating than a four engine if four is better than two with engines out? That alone shows that something like the A350/777 can handle flying single engine much better than 747s.

 

In all honesty, no single commercial aircraft would be certified to fly if it could not easily operate with one engine. 777/A350 etc can clearly handle flying single engine, otherwise they wouldn't let them fly over 6 hours away from a suitable airport!!

[Bidartarra 39]

Both are superb airplanes, appealing in their own ways. Had the chance to fly a BA 744 last year and a United 777 this year and really enjoyed it. They are just beautiful pieces of engineering.

(Athough United service was better, but that's another debate haha)

[scandinavian13 5,192]

Gents,

 

Firstly, the argument between Airbus v Boeing, and/or 2 engines v 4 engines is so incredibly backward that I don't even know where to start. If you're going to have a discussion about said things, then you should really bring facts instead of hypothetical situations. Using a flight that landed safely, despite somewhat of a weather miscalculation, is probably more evidence against an argument than for it. For the record, a few airlines regularly used 75s to cross the Atlantic to NY, Chicago and DC. These flights were routinely shoved into the NE Canadian airports for tech stops because weather (wind) was different over the NATs that had been forecast. It happens, particularly in the winter. Planning over the NATs is actually rather gross (as in "the opposite of 'fine' ") because we don't have wind data collection out there to the same degree we do over mainland airports (enter strong selling point for SWIM).

 

Losing an engine in a quad jet is much less of an issue than in a twin. This is a fact. As an example of this, when NOAA takes its P-3 up to collect data, they will - intentionally - shut down an engine in order to cut back fuel burn and loiter longer. Granted, this is a prop, so they can feather and avoid increased fuel burn, but you'd be hard pressed to find an operator who would do this with a twin. Could a twin do the same work on less fuel? Probably. Would I intentionally bring a twin into a hurricane and other terrible weather? Personally? No. The determination of risk is one that an operator needs to decide. How do you define risk? What are your plans in place to mitigate that risk? What ETOPS ratings are available for the airframe? What ETOPS rating can I realistically and economically maintain? What is the public perception of a quad jet versus a twin? Keep in mind that the customer will make choices that are not in line with actuality. As an example, to many customers, prop planes are unsafe. To others, four engines are categorically better than two, even if they're comparing a 777 to a 707. Your decisions here are determining factors into the profitability of your airline.

 

Also...I'm not sure if people are aware, but ETOPS 330 allows overflight of just about any spot on the globe except some minor parts of Antarctica and southern seas that you really don't need to fly over. As ETOPS ratings go up, they become increasingly difficult and costly to maintain. So...hooray ETOPS 370! You now have the option to fly over areas of the world that you will never, realistically, fly over, unless you think there is incredibly high demand for a FACT-YSSY route over a perfect great circle (the more realistic FAOR-YSSY is already 330 compliant over a GC route).

 

The A v B battle is pointless, to include the 380 v 747 battle. The issues are more complex than sales numbers. Determining 'success' based on a base metric of overall sales may be an initial stab at it, but another argument could be made for the idea that re-use of an older airframe significantly lowered the cost of production to the point where the profit line was much lower. If you have a look around the financial sites, they have strong opinions on the marketability and financial success of each. One could also argue that the 747-8 was simply a build for a VC-25 replacement, with the cost of tooling and development (of about $4.5B) offset by selling it to a handful of airlines and cargo ops. Additionally, no, the ability to use a twin engine aircraft is not feasible given the amount of power draw that all of the secret squirrel stuff requires. Each engine is not only a provider of thrust - it is also a power plant for the electrics, and in the land of computing, redundancy is even more key than in aviation.

 

Aviation is a complex thing. There's a reason many of the airlines of yesteryear are now gone. There's a reason a lot of the upstarts augered in, particularly when run by people who didn't fully understand the intricacies of the industry. PeoplExpress (both times), the six attempts at re-starting Pan Am, JetAmerica, and quite a few others - all brought down by people who had no idea how complex aviation really was. In many cases, they barely even or never got off of the ground. "Oh...wait...you mean I have to secure rights to use airports before starting airline service there???" I'm sure you all know that looking at marketing numbers like range on some random website isn't a good idea to figure out what your actual range would be. You all know it's more complex than that: what's the wind; what's weight; what's the ISA DEV; what's your CG? So why are we using very, very basic figures to make very complex arguments? We shouldn't be.

[ferrariman15 13]

Is this them retiring their 747-400 fleet or are we talking 747-8's as well? The 747-400 is an old bird and its not surprising that they are coming to the end of their lives. Whereas the 747-8 is still in production (albeit production seriously cut back now). These long distance wide-body airliners don't have the same stresses and strains as regional airliners do from repeated pressurisation cycles and take-off/landings each day but there still comes a time where the costs of maintaining them with the inspection regimes becomes uneconomical. If they were retiring any 747-8's I would be a little bit more alarmed.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

 

 

Is this them retiring their 747-400 fleet or are we talking 747-8's as well?

 

400s - UAL doesn't use 8s.

[vc10man 732]

 

 

My goodness....the topic of this post is about UA retiring its 747s....not who's 4 engine is better

Well stated, Steve.

 

 

lucky enough (and old enough ) to have ridden on a Pan Am 707

Did not quite make it on a Pan Am one, but made it on a BOAC one, not across the Atlantic though.

[PinkPony 171]

What is really pushing United to retire the -400 fleet by 2018, is the FAA deadline to have the NGS (Nitrogen Generation System) installed. The -8i/8F already come with it installed from the factory. I believe only a handful of the last -400F's came with the system installed at manufacture. 

In any case, the FAA estimated ~$200k USD per aircraft, this is a significant investment for most operators, and in UA's case it simply seems that the cost outweighs the benefit!

BA on the other hand, will make the investment and install the NGS on all 18 B744's it plans to keep beyond 2018. Same goes for the remaining LH B744s and any other operator wanting to operate the B744 into the U.S. past the 2018 deadline! In any case, we will see a significant decrease in B744 operators past that date.

The same requirement applies to B767s with center tank, older B777's that did not come with the factory installed NGS system and any other aircraft which has a center tank sitting above a heat source. Which on the aircraft above is the Packs. 

[dskviator 4]

Very interesting read on the NGS on wiki, I believe under inerting systems. That would certainly be a reason why they would reduce the Queen. At SFO, you still see the queen coming in from Asia in the evening, but in LAX, you just see the A380s, and a few 74s. Would indeed be sad when the day comes when we have to go to a museum to see her.

[thibodba57 462]

 

 

The 777 is successful because it's economical to operate not safer or better than a 747.

 

I'm going to have to stop you right there.  This is coming from a guy who flies the 747 for a living.  The 777 safety rating speaks for itself.  Think of the incidents that have involved loss of life with the 777.  One we don't know what happened, one was pilot error and the last was shot out of the sky.  The plane has been flying for nearly 20 years.  The 777 is an engineering marvel quite frankly.  The reason the 747 has fallen out of favor isn't just because its less economical to operate but the safety of the engines nowadays is so astronomically more reliable its of little concern.  The whole reason for a 4 engine jet was because the engines had a tendency to coming apart in the earlier days.  The engineering has come so far its nearly a shock to see anything happen to them now.  Not to mention how much we baby them  increasing safety and longevity.

[ferrariman15 13]

400s - UAL doesn't use 8s.

 

Ok thanks, that makes total sense then.