Don’t put any scratches or dings on it! 
I found a full-proof way of not putting any scratches on it, I didn’t fly it. It got swapped out for another, not nearly as new, A321neo with the standard white and black colours.
Well, damn, in all seriousness, that’s a shame! But it will probably come around to you again while it’s still quite new.
Meanwhile, maybe someone else will get accused of putting a dent in it while parking! 
The one I did fly was only a few weeks older and still had the new plane smell, but not the same as flying the newest in the fleet.
The always entertaining and informative CGP Grey on IATA/ICAO airport codes:
Brian
Thanks - that was great!
USAF’s official press release on today’s roll-out of the B-21 Raider:
A cool pic to be sure. There’s also a vid on that page but I bet it’s mostly speechifying.
I tried to watch the rollout of the B21. My god, the presentation was terrible. Long, intentional delays presumably for dramatic effect, crap music, and almost all the speaking was about recognizing all the bureaucrats involved in the project while giving very few details about the aircraft itself. And all you got to see of it was the front of the plane, which looks pretty much like the last stealth bomber.
On steroids.
Probably another expensive Hanger Queen.
Maybe. One of USAF’s Big Wants for this thing was vastly less maintenance man-hours per flight hour repairing the anti-radar coating.
Did Northop succeed this time? I sure have no clue. But we’ll see.
On other non-GA aviation news, today the final 747 rolled off the assembly line:
I was a little kid when we drove up to Seattle and toured the factory while they were building the first few. Only a handful had been delivered by then. I also remember as a little kid going to my Dad’s airline’s big hangar to see & walk around in the very first 747 they got. Which was one of the first 20 delivered anywhere. Many years later Dad got to fly that one. I never did.
Now, just a few months before my own retirement, the last one rolled out. It’ll be in the air before I’m permanently on the ground. But not by much.
That got me wondering about the build status of the two VC-25Bs (747-8s) that are supposed to replace the current VC-25As flying as Air Force One. According to Wikipedia, and hitherto unknown to me, the plan was scrapped in favour of acquiring two already-built 747-8s that were built for the now-defunct Russian airline Transaero. They were never delivered and were being stored in the Mojave Desert. So the next presidential aircraft will not exactly be second-hand, but not really brand-new, either.
I truly can’t believe they’re going to stop making the freighter version. There’s just nothing else like it.
I was in Miami a few weeks ago and saw a couple Atlas Air 747s at the airport. Not the last one built, obviously, but probably pretty close.
The 777F carries 90% of the payload 10% farther on 2/3rds the fuel burn. And costs significantly less to build.
The 777X F version will burn even less and go even farther.
The 747-8F is now uncompetitive yesterday’s tech. It’s a shame, but the flip side of progress and cool new stuff is that yesterday’s stuff gets obsoleted.
Was an end that was seen coming for a while. But it was the end of truly a brilliant run. So here’s to the Queen, this icon of when Boeing was Boeing and flying was Fly.
I do also crack a smile that the 747 assembly line went on for 2 years after the A380’s.
the 777 lacks nose loading capability so it will never replace a 747 entirely. Right now, the 747-800 is still king.
You’re right abut the nose loading. So for outsized cargo that’s a key differentiator.
It’ll be interesting to see how the future unfolds as 747s eventually become too old and raggedy; what will be the next nose-loader?
FYI, there’s no such thing as a 747-800. There is a 747-8 passenger airplane and a 747-8F freighter.
Starting with the 787 from teh git-go then continuing with the updated 737s, 747s, and now 777s the -100, -200 style nomenclature is no longer used by Boeing. Instead they’re called the -1, -2, -3, etc.
Back in the day the -100, -200, etc. nomenclature was actually more complicated. The last 2 digits referred to the per-carrier customizations. So e.g. the -122 and -222 version would be the American Airlines specific customizations of the -100 and -200 series. Whereas the -131 and -231 would be the TWA specific customizations of the same -100 and -200 series. And the -132 and -232 would be the Delta airlines specific customizations.
All that eventually became obsolete as Boeing stopped being willing to significantly customize airplanes for each airline. And as airlines no longer owned airplanes from new to scrapyard. And kept merging and splitting and such. So Boeing got rid of the now-useless last 2 digits.
I wonder if the next large twin-engine design from Boeing or Airbus might have an upper deck like the 747, and for the same reason. There will probably be some demand for a freighter that can accept oversize cargo through a nose door, and have the improved economics of two engines. Does the upper deck exert much of a penalty in terms of drag or weight compared to a conventional fuselage? I guess it will be a question of whether they can corner that small market for freighters without damaging the economics of the passenger version too much.
Hah! Nice.