Posts Tagged ‘747’
The End of an Era: 2014 is the Last Time Any Airline Will Boast of Its Boeing 747 Jumbo Jets – Air China’s 747-8Wednesday, November 26th, 2014
I was surprised to see this ad:
Here’s how things looked back in 1968:
And here’s how things looked back in 2008 for Boeing’s jumbo jet competition, the Airbus A380.
Where’s our jumbo jet scorecard?
Boeing 747 1st Generation = SUCCESS! Unquestionably, but now obsolete
Boeing 747 2nd Generation = SUCCESS! Unquestionably, but pretty much obsolete
Airbus A380 1st Generation = FAILURE! Pretty much. A big money pit for Airbus
Boeing 747 3rd Generation = FAILURE! Approaching obsolescence faster than expected
See a pattern here?
It’s Finally Happening: Emirates Airlines Launches Daily Airbus A380 Superjumbo Service Between SFO and Dubai December 1stTuesday, November 11th, 2014
Well I just saw a banner ad, so consider that confirmation that, as of December 1st, 2014*, Emirates is finally offering daily flights to and from Dubai out of SFO on its shower-stall equipped** Airbus A380 double-decker superjumbos.
So, chalk that up as a victory for SFO.
Here’s your Emirates A380, equipped with a horseshoe bar in the back, upstairs, for Business and First Class passengers only:
It was back in 2008 that Emirates brought a then-new A380 to town, to show it off. Get all the deets on that visit right here.
But, IRL, they ended up using the smaller Boeing 777-300ER twinjet instead. When asked, the Emirates people said they were “considering” the A380 for daily flights to and from SFO. Well, six years later, the day has come.
Oh, here’s my take on SFO + A380 readiness right here. IMO, the A380 was, is, and will continue to be Just Another Airplane. Sorry.
*The writer is saying that the new, longer-range A380’s are lighter? Uh, I think he should have said heavier instead. More fuel = more range, right? That’s the case here. It’s still a very heavy aircraft, one that’s still heavier than designed…
**What happens to your used shower water after your five-minute-max spritz is over? Emirates wanted to dump it out in-flight but I don’t think they got permission to do that. So, there’s a holding tank that gets emptied out after landing. So, Emirates needs to burn more fuel to carry a useless load of soapy water waste water. Not too “green,” huh? Oh well.
Well, nobody really “lost” QANTAS, but SFO used to have the big Australian carrier like for a half-century and now it doesn’t so that’s what SFGov was upset about back in the day. Let’s review.
Here’s 2009, from Qantas:
“In 1954, San Francisco became Qantas’ first US mainland destination and we have a long association with the city. We are delighted to showcase our new aircraft to the people of San Francisco.”
And here’s 2009, from Newsom:
“San Francisco International Airport was designed to accommodate the new A380 aircraft, and we are extremely pleased today to welcome Qantas Airways in the first commercial A380 flight to SFO,” said San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom. “This state-of-the-art, environmentally sensitive new aircraft provides yet another bridge of friendship between San Francisco and Australia, and we look forward to continuing our long and successful partnership with Qantas.”
Now IRL, the Airbus A380 was and is just another airplane in the sky. And IRL, the state of the art of large commercial aircraft would be to use two large engines instead of the A380’s four smaller engines. And calling it “environmentally sensitive” was and is a bit of a stretch and, in fact, these days it’s considered a guzzler and so much so that Airbus is considering certifying completely different engines.
Anyway, what happened soon after this press conference in 2009 is that Qantas shut down operations at SFO and went to Texas. So instead of upgrading airplanes coming into town, they just upped and quit on us, they couldn’t wait to get out of here.
Why? Because it made sense for them to do so and also the airport people at Dallas Fort Worth came up with millions of dollars to throw at Qantas.
Who knows, Qantas might come back to SFO at some point (but it doesn’t really matter all that much).
Pretty much everything he said at his press conferences turned out to be wrong – this is just an example.
Of course the scientific term for chemtrails is contrails, or vapor trails if you prefer.
But if you’re tired of controlled demolition, Building 7, and the JFK conspiracy, then chemtrails might be for you!
Chemtrail sprayer closeup over San Francisco, 2-16-14
(Nice camera, dude – a Canon Powershot SX50 at 1200mm equivalent.)
Mountain View View, Sometimes – The Boeing 747-200 What They Call Air Force One Right Next to the 101 FreewayFriday, October 25th, 2013
What you can see from the freeway, sometimes:
Click to expand
And then you’ll see the support aircraft at and around SFO, in the next county up the 101.
Check Out How Big the Overly Large Wingsails of Larry Ellison’s Failed America’s Cup are – Like in Relation to a JetlinerWednesday, June 5th, 2013
This is pretty much to scale, believe it* or not.
Click to expand
And actually, the real wing of this KC-10 jet, which would be considered the size of a medium-big jetliner these days, is smaller than what you’ll find on Craaaaaazy Larry Ellison’s AC72 America’s Cup yachts.
And actually, Craaaaaazy Larry Ellison’s AC72 America’s Cup yachts have wings bigger those found on monstrous Boeing 747’s, your prototypical jumbo jets.
Hey Larry! Why don’t we use smaller wings on days when the wind is blowing a lot? Oh, you said no, Larry? OK fine.
But hey Larry! Why don’t we allow control devices like, IDK, spoilers, you know, the way other similar-sized wings have? Oh, you said no, Larry? OK fine.
But hey Larry! Why don’t we have a spoiler system for use in emergency situations, like NASCAR has, you know, since your people felt the need to promote this under-regulated “sport” as “NASCAR ON THE WATER?”
Oh, you said no, Larry? OK fine.
But you WILL take eight figures from the taxpayers of San Francisco in order to fund your ego-gratification race?
Well then, On With The Show.
*Your DC-10, MD-10, KC10 type aircraft were famous for having big, big tailplanes, back in the day, the likes of which you can see in this photo, the horizontal stabilizer you can see at the back. Which was fine, but it wasn’t efficient because tailplanes don’t really lift anything. So, McDonnell-Douglas engineers made the updated model, the MD-11, with a smaller tailplane. And they also strengthened the landing gear to deal with the lengthened body. All these things led to a more efficient but harder-to-handle aircraft. So in tough landing situations things head south in a hurry and, instead of the landing gear collapsing, you’ll break a wing off and roll over. (See below.) These days, this is mostly a problem for FedEx pilots and it will continue to be for the foreseeable future. Godspeed, FedEx pilots.
Oh, and this wasn’t the only safety issue with this unsuccessful and relatively rare a/c.
- On July 31, 1997 FedEx Flight 14, MD-11 N611FE, crashed during a landing at Newark Liberty International Airport, New Jersey. The aircraft flipped onto its back and subsequently burned, following a landing attempt from an unstabilized flare.
- On August 22, 1999 China Airlines Flight 642, an MD-11 operated by subsidiary Mandarin Airlines, crashed while landing at Hong Kong airport during a typhoon that exceeded the plane’s crosswind specifications, also flipping onto its back and burning. Three passengers were killed.
- On March 23, 2009 FedEx Express Flight 80, N526FE, crashed at Narita International Airport, Japan while landing in windy conditions. Airport surveillance video showed the aircraft becoming airborne again after the first touch-down, then impacting nose-first the second time and turning onto its left side, erupting into flames; the impact flipped the aircraft upside down. The aircraft finally came to rest some distance left of the runway. The two flight crew members were killed.“
December 3rd, 2011 was San Francisco’s DAY WITHOUT CLOUDS – A Jumbo Sky Filled with (Quiet) Jumbo JetsSunday, December 4th, 2011
Yesterday, owing to the unusual winds what blew away* the fog, I saw jumbo jets above S.F. in places where I normally don’t, but I couldn’t really hear them. (I guess jets have gotten a lot quieter these days.)
Like this low-flying United Air 747-400 near the Ferry Building – you could hardly hear it:
Click to expand
*I suppose – cf. yesterday’s Blue Sky Red Bridge from Burrito Justice
Well, here’s the latest from Business Report – The Chronicle with Bloomberg:
Uh, so I’m not saying that the powers that be shouldn’t have gotten ready for the long-delayed Airbus A380 jumbo jet, but this wasn’t all that much of a gutsy call, right? It’s like, should we prepare to accommodate the jets that are being planned for five-ten years from now?
O.K., so why not prepare? Sure. But I don’t know how much credit should go to the people of SFO for doing what they’re paid to do.
See? Some have three jetway thingees, some have two:
Click to expand
In other news, the new A380 uses more fuel than any other airliner you could think of. So this is incorrect:
“It’s a much less fuel-consuming aircraft. It’s a much more efficient aircraft; it costs 30 percent less to operate than other wide bodies.”
And considering all the hype, the hype like this:
“The A380’s modernity, comfort and stylishness should help drive business between the Bay Area and overseas markets, said R. Sean Randolph, president and CEO of the Bay Area Council Economic Institute. Randolph said he thinks this is especially true of the burgeoning business relationship with India, which generates high transpacific traffic.”
…the A380 appears to be kind of a big nothingburger. You want to fly from India, you can do it on a Boeing 777 or an old 747 or, soon enough, the long-delayed new 747-8i. And in fact, if anything, the trend of rising fuel prices is making some airlines rethink the desirability of non-stop hops from faraway lands. And “stylishness?” You know, I’d just love to make business with you there, Reddy, but that triple-seven they want me to fly over on, well, it just doesn’t do it for me, it’s not stylish at all, you know? I’ll wait until Airbus makes a fat piggy plane with wings that are too big (because they were designed for future stretched versions like the A380-900, or, Gaia help us, the mythical A380-1000. But, seeing as how the freighter version of the miraculous, wonderful, oh-my-God-this-changes-everything A380 got cancelled, it might be a good long time before the world sees a stretched A380…)
And speaking of the new 747, Lufthansa is also buying those as well, so maybe you’ll be on a Boeing the next time you fly to Frankfurt. IRL, Lufthansa calculates about a 3% delta in fuel economy per passenger betwixt the newish A380 and the impending Boeing 747-8i.
Anyway, the giant A380 jetliner does not necessarily prove SFO planners right, just saying.
Now, about those substandard runways…