You wonder how pockets of this survive when top management comes and goes, who sometimes only know the company as just some logo or another corporation to be managed, and when workforces go through rounds and rounds of potential layoffs where such knowledge and initiative is generally lost.
Maybe it also helps to be a company that has at least something to do with hardware that leaves a physical history :)
From the outside, we don't know who they are, but sometimes we get a glimpse of their passion.
Khomeini was killed, Trump isn't president anymore and Iran's military and the right haven't died. In tech, Bell Labs is 'demonopolized' yet it's parts have become stronger.
I disagree that the it dies with true believers. It decays and reforms and even gets stronger.
And judging from the press, this was a highly coordinated event including thousands of spectators and John Travolta. [1]
Top management can love having fun and maintaining traditions too. They're people too.
[1] https://thepointsguy.com/news/boeing-747-farewell-celebratio...
It sure as hell wasn't the "out source the 737 Max 8 avionics software to some low cost of living $8/hr contractors" beancounter management.
Nor the "lets make the secondary angle of attack sensor part of the 'premium package' and blame the cheapskate customers when their planes crash" MBA bro management.
And it definitely wasn't the "Lets put 'undue pressure' on our ODA-certified staff and make them lie to the FAA about the MAX8 program" assholes either.
But maybe you're right, maybe it's not an entire barrel of bad apples yet...
There would be people who think like that who joined boeing in the past couple of years...
There a now hundreds of comments arguing about how this "Easter egg" got pulled off, when it is in fact nothing else than a well organized publicity stunt (typical HN discussion, though, I suppose ? Fontenelle, golden teeth, etc..)
Good for the 747 folks, though, it's always nice to get some form of recognition.
And good luck to all the people trying to make planes fly with less GHG emissions - hopefully they get a ceremony, too, someday.
The drawing started at 16:50 UTC and ended at 19:30 UTC, so 2 hours and 40 minutes of the 6 hours and 20 minutes long flight.
In any case, this most likely required approval from the FAA, but the cost per se should be neglectable, considering that they have been produced since 1970s.
ADSB reporting, which powers these flight tracking sites that are available to the public, is (relatively speaking) a very new thing to aviation and the general public. And the fact that these maneuvers are absolutely fantastic training and aviation problem solving and you've got the perfect storm for a newly born tradition that will continue to survive and evolve.
This makes me so sad, all of our traditions which make companies unique will actually be eroded away by market forces. No wonder no one stays at a workplace anymore.
1. https://metro.co.uk/2018/11/11/marine-pilots-investigated-fo...
My inner cynic cannot ignore the fact that this was a planned flight, with several layers of approvals, not something a small group of enthusiasts did as an homage to the olden days. I bet this is a PR stunt and nothing else. Yes, I am very fun at parties.
I’m sure it was all planned and coordinated with their marketing team. After all, they need to figure out important things like how much fuel, time to arrival, etc.
Right?
But it is also deeply human. Humans are designing this aeroplane and building this aeroplane. It's a piece of human history and a significant one in recent times.
So it is well worth ignoring efficiency and commemorating it for the sake of the humans involved. After all, our entire human existence is incredibly wasteful.
I’m all for having fun, and I love that they spent the money to do it
- Jet fuel from NYC to LAX seems to cost ~$10k.[1]
- You pay a pilot $50 / hour salary. (+100% more with benefits?)[2]
- Double all of that for a bunch of random things I can't think of (airport fees?)
My napkin math seems to indicate this couldn't possibly cost Boeing more than $10-20k? Pretty small potatoes to such a large company.
[1] https://simpleflying.com/commercial-airliner-fuel-cost/ [2] https://www.ziprecruiter.com/Salaries/Commercial-Pilot-Salar...
https://www.aviationinterviews.com/pilot/payrates/united-par...
I didn't read about the flight but I assume that delivery was happening anyway, with or without the stunt. I am guessing it took an hour or two extra, so the fuel and pilot salary cost should only be what was extra in addition to the regular flight amount?
Yeah they were losing billions through criminal negligence and delayed deliveries of the 737 Max, so a couple of tens of thousands for some well needed good PR is nothing. This is probably the first bit of it for multiple years now, with all the delays in the 777X, assembly quality issues of 787, etc.
My working was:
+2 hours (a path that should take 0.5 hours took 2.5h according to flight radar)
According to a random aviation site, an unspecified 747 revision at unspecified altitude with unspecified engines burns 4 litres per second, so take that with a bag of salt!
Jet A1 fuel at $1/litre-ish
$30k-ish ?
That's uh...pretty rough and I'm not a flight buff, but wanted to do the bare minimum for the exercise.
[0] https://science.howstuffworks.com/transport/flight/modern/qu...
* edited the ppg
For comparison the average US household produces ~7.5 tons of CO2 emissions every year so that's ~2.24 years of the average household's emissions
Your link is for an old covert drug research program?
“You know that. Now we know that. But just don’t do it anymore.”
Edit: forgot the barrel roll was on a 707 - not a 747
many years later, Boeing Chief Test Pilot John Cashman stated that just before he piloted the maiden flight of the Boeing 777 on Jun. 12, 1994, his last instructions from then Boeing President Phil Condit were “No rolls”. -- anecdote from https://theaviationgeekclub.com/that-time-tex-johnston-barre...
I wonder why "the suits" at Boeing are so against the barrel rolls? The pilots all agree it's not that big a deal, not dangerous, and anybody watching is going to love it.
this article https://www.straightdope.com/21341407/is-it-possible-to-loop... says that the bigger the plane, the more dangerous because it will roll more slowly, and during parts of the roll particularly 90 degrees off "flat" there is no lift and you're going to be falling.
I'm reminded of the tragic crash of a B-52 illustrating a similar circumstance, and this was the pilot's last flight before retiring https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6io8Tjv7xk
Found it - "Aerobatic Capabilities of “Marginally Aerobatic” Airplanes" - scroll down to "The Physics of Aerobatics" and click "Paper", toward the end there is a detailed summary of how a transport jet could just barely do a very ugly loop. https://www.understandingairplanes.com/online.html
It’s not a big deal in a clean F-15C to start a barrel roll, change minds, and add a full right deflection for 1s to recover to a level flight. But in a larger and non-manauver-oriented planes like a 747, you might find out that the aircraft under present circumstances cannot command more pitch or roll rates to transition from a high-speed inverted descent to a desired positive climb situation before the altimeter indication would reach zero or below. The latter was not so fun.
Overall, I think it’s reasonable that “the suits” were not embracing it. The test pilots made their point, the world witnessed it, any further attempts weren’t strictly necessary, and frankly would have been scary.
The Fairchild B-52 crash isn't really comparable to the 707 roll. That was at a much lower altitude and a far more aggressive maneuver.
Back then "flight acrobatics" beside showing off the skills of a pilot was the art of "selling" planes/flying and making it popular after all the "Jennies" were sold off (and the pilots laid off) by the government after WWI[0] for essentially pennies: about $200 (~$4.000); production cost initially at $5.000 (~$100.000). Civil aviation "mass-adopted".
So, by selling a 707 with a barrel roll is as old school as it gets.
[0]https://web.archive.org/web/20150324051634/http://www.southe...
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_F._Udvar-Hazy_Center
There were some unusually significant structural differences between the prototype dash 80 and production 707's, for example:
> The 132 in (3,400 mm) wide fuselage of the Dash 80 was large enough for four-abreast (two-plus-two) seating like the Stratocruiser. Answering customers' demands and under Douglas competition, Boeing soon realized this would not provide a viable payload, so it widened the fuselage to 144 in (3,660 mm) to allow five-abreast seating and use of the KC-135's tooling.
I need that sign. ha
On small displays this is otherwise obstructed by a cookie popup that offers only an “accept all” button. What’s even the point of the popup then?
If you're in the EU you'll see a "Reject All" option. To confirm this, set a breakpoint in their JS, change your country to an EU one, and the option to "Reject All" cookies appears: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/09wcuy4yh3qqoaw/reject_a...
Here's a screenshot of where I set the breakpoint and changed my country to France: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/ju41dpj14pn4onh/bp.png
Wow.
> Live flight not found
> The flight with callsign GTI747 is currently not tracked by Flightradar24. It's either out of coverage or has already landed.
> Do you want to see the flight history of this aircraft?
> [ ] No, close pop-up > [X] Yes, show aircraft history
Complying with idiotic bureaucratic regulations. Nobody wants to be popping that thing up, but if they don't, they can get reamed by the EU.
If anything, putting such wildly non-compliant popups should make you more liable to punishment, because it undermines an argument of ignorance.
Their ideas are at best slightly lower-quality than the results of letting my 2-year-old wash the windows.
They could have also just programmed the FMS with the waypoints and the plane flew itself.
Since the clearance includes a STAR, I'm suspect it was all filed IFR.
This would be the very last explanation in aviation for sure. Like, dead last in terms of speculation.
Not sure what you're looking at, but this is absolutely incorrect.
> I would suspect some custom control system was used.
Not a chance in hell.
You'd be wrong. Airline bosses (Willie Walsh? Almost sure it was him) have said it literally costs less to have two 787 fly one after the other than a single A380. The fuel efficiency of twin engine planes compared to 3 or 4 older engines compensates for the lower capacity.
Big Plane vs Little Plane (The Economics of Long-Haul Flights) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlIdzF1_b5M
The number of airline passengers goes up every year except for a couple of years where there have been dips due to major world events.
Although given it was flown at such a lower altitude below 15k feed near Moses Lake (which is where Boeing does a ton of testing at that airport) it's possible the pilots hand flew this by following a pre-plotted magenta line already plotted on a map for them.
A couple of years ago, I made it a point on an international trip with my kids to book seats for us on the upper deck. It was really awesome, and I am sure they will look back on it as a great memory.
If you are able to, before it is too late, I would encourage doing it.
The most iconic seats on the most iconic civilian airplane!
A 737 is roughly that length and weight of a Blue Whale (North Pacific).
As for being the most beautiful civilian aircraft. I see your 747 and raise you a Concorde
With 747s the wings flap up and down quite visibly in turbulence, and you can even see the fuselage twisting if the curtains aren't closed between the sections.
There's also just the wall thickness to mass ratio. You ever notice that you can crash toy RC cars all you want and they never break, but if you crash a real car even mildly it's rather easily totaled?
That might not be the best to share to someone who says they are being uncomfortable in a airplane, you're making things worse for them! :D
If you haven’t seen the wing flex in a 737 or A320 you aren’t paying close enough attention. It’s very obvious during the takeoff roll as load is applied or during any moderate+ turbulence.
I like the atmosphere/branding of aviation and prefer flights over train travel as an experience, but after my wife recently wrote an article about the handling of emission information by the sector and I read many of the more science- and engineering-focused studies she is referencing in her work I am now officially horrified by flying.
It's just so damned inefficient and the industry is so disingenuous about it (layers of fraud related to carbon offset schemes, lobbying, etc.) and tries so hard to talk customers out of caring that stunts like this do not read as the heartwarming celebration of the engineering crafts it once would have. Instead being this wasteful and callous makes a mockery of trying to engineer a better world.
It's a misuse of a magnificent tool we should respect more surgically for its utility and risks.
I would totally think this cool if there were no climate emergency. But the needless and frivolous extravagance feels so tone deaf to me.
This site uses cookies
By clicking “Accept all cookies”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts.
Would be neat to have an AutoCAD driver for the 747 navigation system.
I'm not in the aero business myself, just repeating what I heard other, more knowledgable-sounding people said. Maybe that's not true or there's an exception for this one.
I'm pretty sure that's an urban legend; I've seen the same story, but never evidence for it.
don't all 747's look the same by definition? lol
Book a flight from/to Germany with Lufthansa or from/to South Korea with Korean Air. They use the 747-8i and Lufthansa even the older 747-400 (delivery issues with B787 and B777). It is a nice plane and efficient between high demand routes of major destinations (e.g. JFK<-->FRA). If you want spend more money, I recommend the upper-deck which is provides a private atmosphere.
Question: But I'm not wealthy?
Answer: Me neither. I had a nice talk with a complete stranger in the middle row in the Economy during the last intercontinental flight. No Champagne but nice memories.
If business: Lufthansa business-class seats allow for lay-flat but with older screens. I like them because use an open interior without the closed "office-cubicle" interior of other airlines. Look out of the window, drink champagne, eat a nice meal (or two...) or sleep.
PS: Booking the 747 keeps her flying.
The 747 has been replaced for passenger service for decades. This isn't the first time production has been halted. The 777 has been around since the 1990s. With the 767, 777, and 787 there's really no need for the 747 anymore, especially for passenger service.
> Does the 777X have the same design flaws as the 737 MAX, namely larger engine, positioned forward in way that destabilizes the airframe?
In a word, no.
The 777X looks more like the 737NG vs the 737 Classic. It's stretched and has new wings, but the engines on the 777 were already massive. The 777 started with 330cm diameter engines and the new ones are 335cm. Given the gear arrangement on the 777 I doubt they had to move the engines forward.
Further, the 737 MAX crashes weren't directly caused by moving the engines, it was more caused by MCAS and a lack of training and explanation. Boeing tried to make the 737 MAX feel like a 737NG, but the plane itself wasn't inherently unstable.
The 777X does not have MCAS:
> Boeing stated that the 777X does not have an equivalent of the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) that is installed on the 737 MAX and that played a role in two crashes.
Until we get our population down to a sustainable level, this is unconscionable.
Get it under a billion and we can probably afford this. Until then, definitely not.
Huh? Why would FlightAware agree to this? What would the point even be?
By that logic Boeing could just pay to have their carbon numbers falsified too. May as well falsify the population numbers too while they are at it.
You can criticize the carbon emissions but why advocate for falsifying data? They could have just... not done the flight.
https://www.travelcodex.com/seattle-seahawks-boeing-747-800/
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=eastern+w...
The Whidbey NAS pilots who did it got in trouble, as I recall.
https://nationalpost.com/news/world/the-u-s-navy-released-tr...
Then there's a long phone call to, likely Seattle, Center to get the flight route accepted into the system. There's a possibility the ATC computers couldn't take all the way points, in which case they would need an airspace reservation where they could do the pattern.
(FR24 makes it difficult to see on mobile & in general)
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/GTI747/history/20230201/...
There's probably a similar function for flightradar24 as well but I don't know how to find it there.
I can’t even fathom the skill required to move a piece of equipment that large in a straight line let alone produce precise graphics with its flight path.
Sometimes people are pretty cool.
Also, if I’m not mistaken that flight started at 7:50 local time. Was that 3 minutes later than intended?
Very nice.
