You must log in or register to comment.

smashey t1_izbn1gu wrote

Interesting to think that the 747 was in production for 47% of the history of aviation.


An_Awesome_Name t1_izcxiwa wrote

The C-130 has been in production for 57% of aviation.


Blockhead47 t1_izdodwc wrote

The Beechcraft Bonanza has been in production since 1947.
Suck it Lockheed.


Wild_Dingleberries t1_izdkxmu wrote

B-52 as well, both around 70 years now

B-52 in service that long, not production like the C-130.


PicardTangoAlpha t1_izdlgpz wrote

B-52 is in operation longer, but the last one rolled off the assembly line long long ago.


Wild_Dingleberries t1_izdlz1w wrote

You are right. Me being half awake mistook production for service. Good catch


RubberPny t1_izesodn wrote

Yup. 1962 was the last one, though they have been upgraded numerous times over since then. New engines, electronics, weapons, etc.


newarkian t1_ize5c49 wrote

B-52 pilots are younger than the planes they fly


V41K4R13 t1_izbhkqv wrote

Great plane that’s very comfy, sad to see it go.


AllAmericanSeaweed t1_izbzoqu wrote

I mean this means that the 747 still has another 10-30 years of life left.

The last plane was just built. 747s have a fairly long life, with the average operational age being 27 years.


Adderbane t1_izcgcri wrote

The last B-52 was built before the first 747 and they're projected to be in service for another 20-30 years.


2SP00KY4ME t1_izdev5l wrote

But 747s are also 100ft+ longer and have no interest from military buffs


Vault-71 t1_izeg5hc wrote

Wait, can you legally buy a B-52?


djkuhl t1_izeva2m wrote

Been a few projects up on Barnstormers. You can probably make an offer at a boneyard in the desert. You’ll most likely have to find a lot of alternative parts that were stripped out.


boringhistoryfan t1_izcvj3i wrote

I gather they've largely been phased out of passenger carrying though. The new one, and most of the last produced set are all being used in Freight I think? The newer long haul planes like Dreamliners give much better fuel economy v passenger load than the old 747s from what I gather.


ivytea t1_izcyzgf wrote

Even freighters are starting to use converted twin jets now as ETOPS becomes a reality and the reason why 747 still stays is because 1.higher MTOW and high attitude airport operation due to additional engines 2. Oversized and odd shaped cargo which calls for a dedicated front loading door which is only available on factory new 747 and not even the on converted freighters


mccoyn t1_izdxmox wrote

ETOPS -Extended-range Twin-engine Operations Performance Standards

MTOW - Maximum Takeoff Weight


boringhistoryfan t1_izcz8f9 wrote

I wonder what will happen as the 747 is phased out for freight though. Because I gather that the bit about operation and the front door make it a pretty valuable carrier in lots of cases.

Will someone develop a freight specific jet? With features emulating what the outgoing 747 can do? Or would they move those things onto slower transports like shipping?


qwerty12qwerty t1_izd9oj7 wrote

Unfortunately though the vast majority of that is going to be cargo. If I remember right, the US has no airline that currently flies a 747


[deleted] t1_izbp887 wrote

The use of the word "comfy" to describe an aircraft makes me chuckle for some reason xD


DJ_Moore_2 t1_izc8t25 wrote

I literally just took my first flight this past Friday, and took my second one today to get home. It was absolutely not comfy at all lmao. But I’m glad I finally got to fly after 37 years of never doing so.

Also, fuck airports.


bigwebs t1_izc9al1 wrote

They can be pretty disorienting and chaotic until you get a natural sense of how they work.


DJ_Moore_2 t1_izc9ok8 wrote

I think I did alright for my first time, especially having layovers in decently sized airports and having to check a bag.


bigwebs t1_izc9w9g wrote

If you got to your gate on time, then you did good. Honestly, they’re so much better than they used to be.


DJ_Moore_2 t1_izcalou wrote

I had enough time to wait in a long ass Chick-Fil-A line in Dallas Forth Worth!


bigwebs t1_izcaqjx wrote

Yeah - going to the airport hungry is not a good time. Especially if you’re stuck buying from the food courts.


DJ_Moore_2 t1_izcb2sb wrote

Yeah I had some terrible chicken tenders in Wilmington before I left on my flight out to Arizona. And they were wicked expensive. But the Chick-Fil-A was only about a dollar more expensive than normal ones.


z500 t1_izcvuua wrote

I love getting to check out different airports. Even better when you have time to get a few drinks in. Those seats make my ass hurt though lol


SideburnSundays t1_izbvy2t wrote

He’s probably a pilot. They’re the only ones with decent seats.


BeautifulType t1_izcl91e wrote

Or remembered the 90s when some 747s weren’t retrofitted for packing humans into a can of sardines


ericchen t1_izclxk2 wrote

The 90s were awful. They had middle seats that didn’t go flat, even in first class.


Skellum t1_izd9q69 wrote

Plus the ashtrays were still there but full of gum.


Groove4Him t1_izbivdt wrote

The pictures are pretty sad as the last 747 ever rolls off the line... and nobody is even there. An inglorious end to a most glorious plane.

So long friend. You served us well.


Gloomy-Employment-72 t1_izblz4g wrote

There were a lot of folks there, just not in this shot. Many a picture and selfies galore. Trust me, a lot of folks wanted to see the last one.


Noahdl88 t1_izbwxxz wrote

You don't get close to 200,000 pounds of rolling airplane, OSHA wouldn't like it.


bigwebs t1_izc9ik4 wrote

A 747 is somewhere in the 450,000lb range empty.


TheThebanProphet t1_izbiif0 wrote

Wow, I'm surprised. I thought they phased this out sooner.


squarepeg0000 t1_izbl5qx wrote

Me too. I thought we did the 747 homage several years ago.


thatsAgood1jay t1_izbmd2c wrote

For passenger planes yes, they kept building them for freight.


OrangeJr36 t1_izbs3ir wrote

It won't be done flying just yet.

The freight conversions will keep flying as long as there are plentiful parts that can be pulled off of boneyard airframes for pennies.

Funny enough it will probably be EU Emissions regulations that ultimately do them in.


DamNamesTaken11 t1_izbn7he wrote

I remember the first time I ever saw a 747 when I was at JFK as a kid, I was amazed something that big could fly. Eventually, I did fly in one a few times, never on the upper deck but even still it was incredible having a seat near the nose of one of them.

Long live the Queen of the Skies!


Jillredhanded t1_izdb57j wrote

My Dad worked for BOAC as an engineer when they debuted their fleet at Kennedy. I was just a little kid but remember they huge party they had for staff. Few years later when he'd transferred to Dulles he would occasionally bring me and my brothers to work with him. Playing Hide and Seek on a parked 747 was the BEST.


Kolipe t1_ize85x3 wrote

Got to fly the upper deck once. Seat 1A on a BA 747. Second best seat I've ever had.

Best seat ever was first class on an Emirates A380. Could only afford it because of an error fair. Doubt I'll ever fly first again.


maxxspeed OP t1_izefkpr wrote

I got to ride in first class coming home from Basic Training in the Army. Flight was over-booked in coach but had had an open spot in First Class. I was 17 in my Khakis, didn't shave yet and I think they thought I was cute. Got 2 free Screwdrivers. (nobody cards a manboy in uniform)


Kolipe t1_izfd8g6 wrote

I was in my mid 20s wearing a converge shirt and jeans lmao


maxxspeed OP t1_izblmp4 wrote

I flew to Germany when I was in the Army in 1976 on a 747 out of JFK. The US ski team was on the same flight. My flight with Flying Tiger Line out of New Jersey was overbooked so I lucked out and went on a civilian airline.


6Emptybottles t1_izbo8h1 wrote

The 747 SP from Newark to Tokyo made money for United back in the 80s and 90s by selling out the freight. The passenger tickets were outrageously expensive but freight paidthe bills.


headbangershappyhour t1_izdavp4 wrote

This is still pretty much universally true, especially for transoceanic flights. It contributed to the massive logistical clusterfuck of covid in the early months because the passenger carriers collectively fly more freight across the Pacific than FedEx/UPS/DHL. When passenger travel came to a halt, so did all of that supplemental freight carriage.


vonvoltage t1_izbro6r wrote

The Queen of the Skies.

One the neatest things about the 747 is how fast it is because it has it's wings swept back so much.


Yeetstation4 t1_izbteeq wrote

Kept going just long enough to dunk on the a380 lmao


squeevey t1_izboeli wrote

I'm so happy i got to fly in the upper deck of one. I kick myself for not taking more pictures. Just wish it had a piano bar.


gopoohgo t1_izbylgq wrote

Korean Air 747-8's are still flying


Kevgongiveit2ya t1_izc73ie wrote

A Korean buddy of mine I flight instructed with flys them for Korean air. Meanwhile I’m flying a crj… so jealous.


yogorilla37 t1_izbv8na wrote

As kids (1981 I think) we had the flight attendants take us up to the lounge to play cards on a trans pacific flight, I recall big comfy chairs but no piano sadly.


Squattedtrucksarebad t1_izbqt4v wrote

I don't see the freighters getting phased out any time soon.

You'll definitely see a load of passenger carriers get scrapped, but cargo airlines will continue using them for another few decades due to the nose door so they can get big items in it. Some passenger carrying ones will probably get turned into freighters too.

Sort of how Nolinor still operates the 737-200 Combi with the gravel kit. It has features no or few other planes have.


blue_twidget t1_izedf5g wrote

Boeing has a refurbishment program to convert old passenger planes into freight, so probably.


Epcplayer t1_izbv8e8 wrote

The 747 was probably the most profitable losing bid in history


p4177y t1_izchfwk wrote

> The 747 was probably the most profitable losing bid in history

Some additional context here:

Boeing developed the 747 after it lost out on a bid to build a large cargo plane for the Air Force in 1964. The winner of that competition, Lockheed, went on to build the C-5 Galaxy, of which only 131 were built in two phases, one in the late 60s-early 70s, and some more in the 80s.

Meanwhile, Boeing used a lot of that experience on that bid in the development of a passenger airliner, the 747, and ended up being produced for over 50 years, with over 1500 of the type being built.


leontes t1_izbpcs4 wrote

I should have saved my original in its packaging. It’ll be worth a fortune.


themightiestduck t1_izcflzl wrote

The USAF is currently converting two already-built 747s to serve as Air Force One. The current planes have been in service since 1990. If the new ones have the same lifespan, I wonder what will replace them in 2055. The trend is towards smaller planes… the Airbus A380 is already out of production.


FrankReynoldsCPA t1_izd9c5j wrote

Assuming Boeing still exists in 2055, it'll be another Boeing. My guess is it will be 777 or whatever has replaced the 777 in 30 years.


Iniquite t1_izcuy2v wrote

To clarify, they were built specifically to be Air Force One planes. Not just random 747’s turned into Air Force One.


9Blu t1_izecjiv wrote

> To clarify, they were built specifically to be Air Force One planes. Not just random 747’s turned into Air Force One.

No, they were repurposed planes that were already built:

> On 1 August 2017, Defense One reported that, in an effort to pay less for the replacement program, the US Air Force contracted to purchase two of the bankrupt Russian airline Transaero's undelivered 747-8 Intercontinentals from Boeing, which was storing them in the Mojave Desert to prevent corrosion. These airplanes, which were flight-tested but never delivered, are to be retrofitted with telecommunications and security equipment to bring them to the required security level of presidential aircraft, but without the aerial refueling capability originally requested as the structural reinforcements necessary cannot be retrofitted onto an existing airframe.


Iniquite t1_izhnvm4 wrote

I’m guessing you look for posts that you can correct and then spend a bunch of time looking up info to post just to look smart. So, unfortunately for you, you didn’t think about wording, that and OP edited their post. There’s a huge difference between taking a used plane out of service and converting it to an Air Force One, as the original, unedited post suggested, and taking a new plane and modifying it. These planes were built to be Air Force One’s, as I stated. But good job quoting Wikipedia.

Don’t be a douche.


9Blu t1_izhow8k wrote

No. I already knew about the change of Air Force One and have since the change was made. I am sorry you got called out for being wrong and are embarrassed by it but attempting some bullshit rationalization isn’t helping you.

As for being a douche, take your own advice. You obviously need it more than I do.


Iniquite t1_izhpkfc wrote

You’re still being a douche.

Also, what? I also knew about the change of Air Force One.

Please proofread.


noncongruent t1_izd7lb2 wrote

I've always thought the 747 was the most beautiful airliner, it just has so much style. All the others are just functional-looking.


darhox t1_izd1hus wrote

Am I the only one shocked there were fewer than 1600 747s ever produced?


pickles_and_mustard t1_izcwhy6 wrote

I'm surprised there were only 1,574 of them. You'd think there would have been a lot more made since 1967.


NeutralBias t1_izcwx79 wrote

End of an Era indeed. Few product designs last for years, let alone the more thanhalf century the B747 has been around. Really amazing work Boeing did in the 1960s. The 737, also designed and first certificated in the late 1960s, is still in production.

They dont build em like they used to…


cheemsburgrrr t1_izfzlvj wrote

From Pan-Am to Lufthansa, the queen of the Skies will not be forgotten.


tlk0153 t1_izu5zg7 wrote

The most amazing part of 747 is how quickly it came to existence after its inception. I think it took less than foir years between inception and first roll off the factory


Dysentery--Gary t1_izcjcnw wrote

So what is replacing the 747 for passenger travel?


Caswell64 t1_izck4jz wrote

777 and 787. Neither are quite as large capacity as the 747, but using two jet engines (which the 777 and 787 do) rather than the 747’s four engines means the fuel savings are huge.


SounderBruce t1_izcw7zh wrote

The Boeing 777X-9 (which is a bit behind schedule) will have 60 fewer seats but will be longer than the 747-8. Also a wider wingspan (which required the use of folding tips).


boringhistoryfan t1_izcw16l wrote

Yeah plane designed shifted a ton after the 747 as they've gone for more efficient aircraft. I seem to remember reading Airbus didn't read the market properly and screwed up in overcommitting on the A380, which was the "largest" commercial passenger carrier, but largely a dud. Prestige project ultimately because it just wasn't competitive against the dreamliners Boeing went for.


Realistic-Astronaut7 t1_izcveaa wrote

I gotta find a reason to fly on one of these while they're still in passenger service!


SounderBruce t1_izcwbw7 wrote

Lufthansa and Korean Air are your best bets, as they have the largest fleet of 747-8s. Not many of the -400s are still in service.


flume t1_izczfzu wrote

This one will probably still be in service well into the 2040s, unless technology advancements make it not economical to fly.


Bob_Juan_Santos t1_izcw5st wrote

first plane ride was a lufthansa 747 from beijin to frankfurt, if i remember correctly,

flight was great, the landing and take off, not so much due to pressure differences.


Sea_Dawgz t1_ize5ct5 wrote

It was a bucket list moment the time I got upgraded to first class UPSTAIRS on a 747. Since I was a kid I wanted to ride up there!


iamnotbillyjoel t1_izbidd4 wrote

i would not want to fly in the last 747


Wedge38 t1_izbk0rj wrote

It's being used to carry freight cargo. They've been building them for air freight shipping for a while now. So no worries, unless you're a package, you'll be fine.


mishap1 t1_izbk1p5 wrote

Unless you’re a pallet of fresh flowers, I don’t think you’d be super comfortable in it.


lellololes t1_izblff0 wrote

Why? Do you think it isn't built to the same standards as the rest of them?


iamnotbillyjoel t1_izblj8x wrote


see the data on which cars are lemons


lellololes t1_izbln24 wrote

Cars are not built to the same standards as aircraft. It's a totally different world.


iamnotbillyjoel t1_izbm0zd wrote

well that's obvious, yet unconvincing


lellololes t1_izbnfnp wrote

Would it make you feel better if you knew that the jet engines that power the 747-800 are from the series of engines that also powers the 787?


[deleted] t1_izbnkq2 wrote



Squattedtrucksarebad t1_izbshfy wrote

Just under 4% of the total amount of B747s have been involved in an accident that lead to a Hull loss. Some of which weren't even down to fault of the plane.

The 747-8 doesn't contributes to any of them as far as I'm aware.

Planes are built to a different standard to cars. Cars are mass produced. Planes aren't.


flume t1_izcz7i2 wrote

Wait, 1 out of every 25 747s ever built has been destroyed in a crash? Damn I know they've been operating a long time and it includes stuff like CFIT incidents, but I'm surprised it's that high.


Made_of_Awesome t1_izdbu2a wrote

Not crash, just loss beyond economical repair. The stats include everything from terrorist attacks, cargo fires, and floods while in storage.


PeanyButter t1_izblf6i wrote

Disregarding the fact that it's for freight, why?


bigwebs t1_izc9pew wrote

Why not? The newest model has been significantly updated.