As the plane left Sydney, out over the ocean, the plane flew a route that traced the Qantas logo which I thought was a neat touch (you can see that in the link above).
I gotta say this makes me sad. The 747 started coming in to service when I was very, very young but I remember thinking how cool it was back then and, even to this day, it is my favorite passenger jet. I know, newer, more advanced planes which are neat in their own right are out there but still…the 747 is iconic in a way no other passenger jet is.
Visiting Australia has been on my bucket list and I always thought I would travel there in a 747. I still want to visit but I am bummed I may not be able to do it on a 747 (I assume other air carriers still have 747 flights to Australia…I have not checked…so maybe still a chance).
I went to Australia in 2012. When I booked my flights the scheduled showed the aircraft as an A380, but between then and my day of travel Qantas changed the aircraft to a 747, for both my outbound and return flights. At the time I was kind of disappointed, because I’d never been on an A380 before. Now in hindsight I’m kind of glad I got to fly on a Qantas 747.
(I assume other air carriers still have 747 flights to Australia…I have not checked…so maybe still a chance).
Actually, I don’t think so. United was the only other airline that flew them between the US and Australia, and they retired theirs years ago. I think everyone uses 777s and 787s on that route now. I don’t think you can fly there on a 747 unless maybe you take some really indirect route via Asia or something.
Truly. I remember hanging out in the upstairs lounge on few flights. Any time I always check out the fleet stats of the airline, when available. As more modern planes started dominating the commercial fleets, I noticed for many years that the 747 still held more passengers, flew longer maximum distances, and had a higher maximum speed than its newer, younger rivals. Plus, that classic shape. Maybe Boeing will someday produce a “retro” version.
As the designers improve their knowledge of aerodynamics, the designs all merge toward one ideal fit-for-purpose airliner. Before that there were all sorts of weird and wonderful machines, some of them were beautiful.
I’ve flown long-haul on both a 747 and an A380. The latter is a much better experience. I respect the history of the 747, but don’t care to fly a really long flight in one.
Part of it is the engines - the 747 has four, while the 787 and the A350 have two.
Okay, more seriously…but that is a major part of it. The 787, at least, has a slightly greater range than the 747 (14,000 km vs. 13,500km). The 787-9 in Qantas service has fewer seats (236 vs 400ish), but is much cheaper to operate, bringing the seat-mileage cost down.
I’ll leave the actual numbers for the real experts…
Also, I vaguely recall reading that the travelling public, and therefore the airlines, are moving away from the hub and spoke system, where large planes fly between large hubs, and then passengers take smaller planes to smaller airports. People don’t like having to make multiple plane changes, after all. Therefore, smaller, more efficient planes flying from and to smaller airports is the trend.
Put it this way: when I first moved to Australia, almost all US to Australia flights left from LAX and landed in Sydney, and vice-versa. Now?* Flights are going from Melbourne, Sydney, or Brisbane direct over to LAX, San Francisco, Chicago, or Dallas…and I’m probably missing a few. 787’s aren’t as big, but are much more suited to such patterns, being smaller, and flying fuller on fewer people.
As far as the A380…well, it’s really suited only to the hub-and-spoke model. Airports needed to rebuild to accommodate such large planes, and not too many did. They’re expensive to fly.
Like I say, I’m working from some half-remembered articles, but I’m pretty sure I’ve got the gist of it right.
*Well, when things return to normal, if they ever do…
To be fair, the oldest A380 you could possibly have been on is 13 years old (unless you were a test pilot for the A380). Chances are you flew on a much newer one than that.
For a B747 you could easily have been on one that was 20+ years old.
The fit and finish on the A380 was likely better because of it. Also, I suspect the A380, being a sort of flagship for airlines that bought one, got a little extra love on the interior whereas many B747 by this point may well be fitted out as cattle cars (I recall seeing a JAL B747 that was all coach in order to max passenger load). Emirates and Etihad especially pimped their A380s.
I think a B747 could be made to be as swank if someone were of a mind to.
It is mainly that the spoke and hub model has gone by the wayside. Airbus bet on that model with the A380 and Boeing bet on smaller planes with more direct flights with the B787. Boeing won the bet. People will do a lot to avoid changing planes since so much time is lost doing it not to mention possibilities of missing connecting flights and more chances for lost luggage.
It used to be that bigger planes meant bigger fuel tanks which meant longer range. Also, it used to be that overseas flights the planes had to have more than two engines. But that is no longer the case.
New technology allows smaller planes similar or even longer ranges than the big planes (although they are all pretty close).
Interestingly, a B787 is not a whole lot cheaper to fly than a B747 assuming both are filled:
United Continental Holdings Inc.’s United Airlines spent about $17,748 an hour to operate its latest 747 in the 2017 fiscal year, according to consulting firm Oliver Wyman. It spent $10,123 for one of the airline’s smaller 787 Dreamliners. That translates to a per-passenger cost of 9.19 cents a mile for the Dreamliner, compared with 9.23 cents a mile for the bigger plane. SOURCE
I don’t think that cost savings is enough to make the difference. The issue is trying to be sure the planes are filled to capacity on each flight. That is harder to do on a much bigger plane. But, then, you need more planes to move the same number of people…
So I think it is the move away from the hub and spoke model. Airlines can fly the relatively smaller jets to regional airports with vastly lower landing fees and attract more customers with more direct routes.
IIRC I think the 747 will remain in service as a cargo jet. That is one place where bigger is better everytime.
If you have not come across the YouTube channel Wendover Productions I highly recommend it. He does great videos on the nuts-and-bolts of various means of travel (and some other topics). Here is a great video on Big Plane vs Little Plane. Caution: That channel can suck you into a hole of binge YouTube watching. Fascinating stuff done well.
IMO the hub and spoke model is still alive and well. It’s more that the 787 has made it cost effective to connect hubs to smaller, more distant spokes, which does have the effect of eliminating some stops. A decade or so ago, if you wanted to fly from a smaller American city to a smaller Chinese city, first you would fly to a big American hub, then you would to a big Asian hub (likely on a 747), then you would fly to the Chinese city. Now in many cases you can fly to the American hub, and then directly to the Chinese city on a 787.
Yeah, last time I went to Australia we went out on a 747 and back on an A380 (both Qantas). Since I never bother to pay more than the minimum, inevitably I sit behind the wings, and the difference in ambient noise at cruise was the main factor for me - the newer plane was so much quieter, made watching films/sleeping significantly easier. And I believe the in-flight entertainment options on the A380 were better and more reliable.
I love the 747 but if I had the choice again (and I probably never will, now), I’d go for the A380.
