Goodbye BA Jumbos
 

Inevitable but still a sad day. I wonder when the A380 will be retired? I suspect it won't make 50 years.

https://www.flightglobal.com/fleets/...139341.article

Yep. While the A380 has even more issues with economic operation, the 744 is also doomed. And: Most airlines don't need its size currently. Once they do, like in 2 years, 4pod aircraft are even more in disadvantage. So the desicion to get rid of them right now.

Some might be converted to freighters. The A380 won't.

Note that 748 is currently less doubted. But BA doesn't have one.

I doubt they will make freighter conversion - wrong engines.

Sad to see the jumbos go, they looked good in BA colours and especially some of the retro ones they had. I personally don't think their 380s will fly again even though there's mutterings that they will. Back to the main point, sad to see them go I was just thinking many pilots completed their last flights on them and didn't even realise at the time, very emotional time for all this crisis.

Didn't a BA A380 return to LHR yesterday (or Wed?) from storage in France/Spain somewhere?

It's being prepared to go for heavy maintenance in Manila, replacing the one that went there a couple of months ago.

748 - Ahhhhhhhh - Avro

Yes, fifty years. I remember the first one to land at Heathrow back in 1970. Pan-Am. A long time ago.

I remember in 1971 or 1972 landing a Vulcan in Nairobi. We parked up and were doing what we had to do to put the thing to bed when this enormous thing parked next to us. A 747. Never seen anything dwarf a Vulcan like it did. The we realised that they were on a proving flight and only crew on board. Some gorgeous girls got off, obviously struggling with the Captain's luggage because he got off with a small folder under his arm and disappeared off to the hotel. Envy doesn't even get close.

Very sad indeed
 

I have flown well over a million miles as a BA passenger, quite a lot of those in 64A or K on 747s. My favourite seats in my favourite aircraft. Had another 747 holiday trip planned but it was scuppered by COVID.

I wonder if it is a plot by BA management to offload all the 747 personnel at minimum cost.

It won't be the engines - Cargolux has a large fleet of RB211 powered 747-400F. In fact, about 15 years ago Cargolux wanted to buy another six 747-400Fs with Rolls engines, but Rolls had shut down the RB211 line and wasn't interested in starting it up for another 24 engines (Cargolux instead got PW4000s).
Rather, I think the BA 747s are unlikely to become freighters simply because they are already very high time - most already over 100,000 hours. Heck, IIRC, that BA 747-400 that knocked down a building in Joberg was around 108,000 hours - and that was several years ago.

I remember the first 3 parked up in BOAC maintenance. I was working in a hut in Elgin Crescent at the time, just the other side of the blast screen. They were parked up 'cos BOAC crews refused to fly them until they were paid more money. I went past Elgin Crescent on a bus just before the restrictions this year - the hut is still there. I think those buildings will outlast the whole airport; they're just in a sweet spot that no-one wants to develop. The only difference I can see is that there are now barriers to get in to Elgin and Epsom Square, you could just drive in formerly. You could even just drive on to the airfield at the Eastchurch Road crossing.

BTW, all the roads round Heath Row had names starting with the letter pertaining to their compass orientation, quite clever really so you had an idea where abouts to go. The exception was Beacon Road, on the South Side...

TOO

Im guessing around 250 pilots were still operating the type. As all are very senior, will they be shifted to other fleets as needed , or simply bump off less senior folks through their choosing? ( yes unlikely in the modern BA)

Will the oldies take redundancy if offered?

I liked the 747, but its a polluting nightmare of anarchism. Those living in hounslow will breath a little deeper now . Good bye , but your time was up .

I wondered the same about pilots doing a routine flight not knowing it was their last on the -400.
Fabulous aircraft from a bygone era which I was lucky enough to be part of. Over 20,000 hours on Jumbos - mostly in the LHS.
I think I enjoyed every single flight in some way or other. Goodbye and thank you to the Queen of the Skies.
Sob sob……………….

tdracer, you are referring to Cathay Pacific not Cargolux. The six aircraft were in fact -400ERFs which are all still operated by Cathay today and are powered By PW4062A.

At the time CX had already purchased a half dozen -400 and -400BCF from SQ powered by PW4056 engines.

Do you happen to know if RR ever considered a higher thrust rating than their existing high thrust ~60k Lbs “H” rating RB211-525H-T-19 to power the -400ERF?


The CF6-80C2B5F and PW4062A (only -400ER/F engines delivered) produce ~62k Lbs static thrust.

On the -400 only Cargolux operates the RB211 at the higher “H” rating. BA did for a number of years and SA did as well due to the elevation at their home base.

So the 747 was the fastest passenger airliner, after Concorde. It was also the biggest before the A380. The former is long gone, the latter probably not long left. The 747 flew in February 69. So where is the progress?

Sorry captain8 but that's not how BA operate these days.. Many crew looking at the end of their careers.........

the Convair CV-990 Coronado was faster.

The Tu-154 doesn’t hang about either.

The press reports all say 31 aircraft are being retired. Do (did) BA really have that many on the books when COOVID appeared? How many were actually operational?

That's debatable. Wiki quotes the cruise speed for the CV-990 as Mach 0.84. Depending on the model, the 747 'normal' cruise is between Mach 0.84 and 0.86 (the target during initial design was 0.87).

IIRC, the -100 through -300 had a noticeably higher max cruise than the -400, due to wing changes on the -400 I think? (Please correct me, those who flew them).

I do remember watching a documentary a few years ago that covered what happened with President Bush and Air Force One (being the VC-25A/747-200) on 9/11. They spent a number of hours flying random paths around the middle of the USA to keep the President safe, at max possible cruise from what they said, and they were being escorted by groups of fighters scrambled from various bases as they moved across the country. At one point a group of escorting F-16s had to ask the VC-25A to slow down - they were only able to pace it by constantly popping in and out of first stage afterburner, with the horrendous fuel penalty that entailed. One of the F-16 pilots was on the documentary saying 'I didn't know a 747 could go that fast'.

You just knew that the aircraft would be fine and safe I have enjoyed all seating areas. I was not sad though, to see the end of those dreadful 'air-tube' headphones. Although to my 18 year old self, they and the film were a great development!

Mention of the one in Joburg that met the building in the dark, it was parted out on site. But I found it very comforting that the building was severly wrecked and, whilst the wing was buried in the building, the fuel tanks held and the wing stayed attached. Old school metal and yes I know they took a lot of go juice to haul that along - but it was worth it! That machine changed commercial aviation in ways that Boeing and PanAm could never have imagined.

787 and 350 are much more efficient in terms of energy to take stuff a long way. That’s progress.

The wing was basically unchanged on the -400 (aside from the added winglets - and the winglets didn't really do much) - it was the -8 that got an aerodynamically re-profiled wing. The passenger 747-400 (and -300) had slightly better cruise drag relative to the -100/200 because the longer upper deck resulted in better area ruling at higher Mach numbers. Between about Mach 0.82 and 0.87 it all boiled down to fuel burn vs. speed.
During the 747-8 flight testing, I looked at flight test data from the flutter testing at Mach 0.98+ (presumably in a shallow dive - that was SOP for high speed flutter testing). I don't remember the altitude (it wasn't relevant to what I was looking for in the data - I was just interested in very high Mach number data). I was also on a 747-8 flight test where we cruised for over an hour at 37k/Mach 0.84 with an engine shutdown (granted, we were fairly light).

I don't see that as progress. It may be progress for the bean counters, but not for the flying public.

I flew the 747 for 14 years, it was a truly remarkable aircraft. It was not just its size, but its remarkably good handling qualities. In contrast to the earlier types I had flown, which all had some handling vices, the 747 had none. And its system redundancy was second to none. The only handling vice that I could find (if it was a vice at all) was that the nose wheel could skate along the surface if you tried to turn when taxiing at too fast a speed.

It was very stable to fly, was an excellent instrument flying platform, yet, had sufficiently powerful enough controls to handle in a sprightly fashion like a much smaller aircraft. In fact, when seated in the snug cockpit, it was difficult to believe there was so much aircraft following along behind! I was privileged to be IRE/TRE and airworthiness air test qualified. It was during C of A air tests that one could fully appreciate its handling qualities. It stalled immaculately in all configurations, except when clean – when it wouldn’t really stall at all! The minimum speed had been defined by the point when the slow and stately buffeting was considered unacceptable.

Unlike the 707, it had no Mach tuck, even at M0.97, and unlike the VC10 it did not Dutch Roll. It was remarkably straight forward to fly, even with two engines failed on the same side, and it was approved for 3 engine ferry flights. However, those kinds of things were towards the edge of the envelope, not normally encountered in normal route flying, but it was comforting to know there were such large margins.

Areas that did require precision flying were the approach and landing – naturally; and also on departure during flap retraction when the margin between the minimum speed and the flap limiting speed for the configuration could be fairly small at high weights. I forget the exact figures, but I seem to remember something like 7 kts.

Probably the failure that was of most concern was the possibility of an engine failure close to V1, at high weight, at a high altitude airfield. Clearly, the numbers were well worked out, but stopping an aircraft weighing over 350 tonnes from somewhere around 200 mph was not something to be undertaken lightly. Fortunately I never had to do it – other than on the simulator on routine competency checks.

A really wonderful aircraft to fly. And all the more remarkable when one remembers how long ago it was designed. Joe Sutter and his team got it absolutely right.

I believe BA had 32 in service at the time the borders started closing, but one (G-CIVM) had been due to retire within a couple of months, and so was scrapped in the middle of March instead, which then took the number down to 31 at the start of the UK lockdown.

In 1969, we, a group of aeronautical students of the Delft University, went to the Le Bourget airshow. Standing along the taxirunway the prototype 747 passed by. The whole crowd let out a deep sigh, it was só huge!

The first time I saw one was at Halton not long after it had arrived in service.....unfortunately, the "somewhat elderly " civilian instructor didn't appreciate my powers of observation ....and his metronomic incantations being disrupted when I informed the class of its presence

Never got work on them in depth only when passing through or night stopping. However, one aspect that did put the size into perspective, for me at least, was the compartment behind the rear px bulkhead..... and the size of the screw jack / box section for the horizontal stab. Took HM Customs up there a couple of times as part of their training and remember being asked if I went up there on a regular basis. I said no, but, equally, nobody would be suspicious if I or any engineers did. HMRC kindly informed me some enterprising souls at AMS ? had worked this one out and decided the box section on the stab would make a convenient storage area for the products of a certain South American country noted for its exports of such.

I think its the fastest still in service since the retirement of Concorde.

I think the VC10 was faster, and it was only just prior to Covid in Feb this year that appropiately it was a BA 747 that broke the 40 odd year old non-Concorde trans altlantic crossing record held by a VC-10 due to the jetstream from that mega storm in Feb.

And Vanguard Way on the East Side ;)

Hate to break it to you but the Groundgripper Trident 1 cruised at 0.88M for a while when I was first on it..... (65-67).... gets tin hat and makes for bunker, from where his shout of "but I loved flying the Queen of the Skies too!" is drowned by chorus of boos.... !! .

Yes the Trident's Mc was 0.88 but as noted above, the Convair 990 with Mc=0.91 had already been there! Same nominal angle of sweep at 35º of course cf the 747's 37.5º

I still find it truly remarkable that an airliner that first flew 5 months before Neil and Buzz set foot on Tranquility Base, is still around at all!
I never got to fly in one, although I have flown in a A380, and the Dowager Queen of the Skies, the VC10!
I saw my 1st 747 in the summer of 1970, coming home from a school trip to London..it was so unmistakeable, cruising around Ockham stack..ahh happy days!

I posted a bit of a eulogy to the wonderful 74 in BA service some weeks ago and got some legit criticism for being premature, sadly I was right . From my first flight , KHR-JFK (Carnasie 13L approach thrown in) on thanksgiving day 1971 to October 2018 I spent many many hours from behind the wing to F and upstairs on Ba and other 74s so I am sad to see it go. It has of course had its time and BA were really something of an anachronism from hanging onto them . The 380 much more comfortable but with its own problems is nice but not a fan of the triple & which seems to me to wallow around a lot and I was not overly impressed with the 787 , too narrow for BAs sardine business class.

If I am honest I liked the Tri-Star best of that era but it didnt last that long and the 74 took me literally to every corner of the world and I will miss seeing and hearing them and LHR wont be quite the same

Thanks for that very interesting post.

In 1968 I was detached to Hong Kong and on the apron at Kai Tak was the painted outline of a 747. This was so the airport authorities could work out where to put this and that.

I thought that they were stupid; no aeroplane could be that big!

I think it important to remember the Boeing 747 had four engines