A used one goes for much cheaper. A 1967 Boeing 727 for only $700k.
It all depends on whether you get the sports package.
2 Likes
That does seem like a good value. Wikipedia says the unit cost was $22 million near the end of production.
The 747. The biggest. The most expensive. The Best. My Favorite (passenger) Plane.
360-something million? Why not?! Spend some damn money. As the song says āAināt nothing like the real thingā¦ā
Bowling alley, aquarium, archery range, gourmet kitchen and ultra-king size water bed with transparent mattress filled with rare and beautiful jellyfish for your amusementā¦
And thatās only on the bottom halfā¦
2 Likes
I think the payload of a flight only represents 10%-15% of the total weight, so almost all the fuel is used moving the plane (and the fuel) around, and only a small amount goes on paying passengers and cargo.
Edit: this sort of thing.
http://www.aircraftmonitor.com/uploads/1/5/9/9/15993320/aircraft_payload_range_analysis_for_financiers___v1.pdf
Iām sure Iāve heard that the airline industry is a losing proposition, over its existence itās lost more money than itās made.
2 Likes
Thatās what you call a loss leader just to get you in the door. Then they nail you on the t-shirts and undercoating.
2 Likes
We should really try to consider moving towards zepplins/rigid airships/blimps again. They may not have the carrying capacity of a 747, and they are a tenth as fast, but they can be made to be as comfortable or better than a plane, and are so immensely efficient compared to modern jets.
Aeroscraft has already been approved to do testflights by the FAA, and has a current prototype rigid airship that has a designed top speed of 60 kt. The planned production models are specd to have a 66-200 ton payload (small and large models, respectively) and have top speeds of about 120 kt.
With those numbers, you could fly Seattle to New York in about 18 hours in extreme comfort relative to a 777 outfitted with 17.6" wide seats. Itāll take twice as long, but youād be able to actually get up and walk around decently, there might be a cafe, and there might actually be space for a decent restroom. The cabin also wouldnāt have to be as loud as a football game. Not to mention the fact that you could actually enjoy the view of the country below during the flight, instead of the 20 minutes of city on either end of the trip that you get with jets that cruise at 35,000 feet.
If the logistic could be figured out I think zeppelin tourism would be pretty sweet. Iād equate it with cruise ships but given what you can get on a ship the comparison sorta falls apart since to get a cabin with all that up in the air I think would take most of the national helium reserve.
Still, I think airships have their place and should be looked at. Ditto with passenger trains. Hard partās going to be convincing most people they are not in fact boarding a reenactment of the hindinberg.
Citation on that? Remember you pay labour for the crew for the entire flight, ten times the duration of a flight in a jet.
Apparently Jip IS an alternate spelling: āVerb: To take unfairly, to rob. Alternate Spellings: Gyp, Gip, Jyp. Shortening of the word Gypsie, as Gypsies were believed to be thieves.ā It isnāt a connection Iād made. I always thought it was 1940ās US slang.
Iām always amazed they can make any money; especially the low cost carriers where airport tax can easily double or triple the cost of your ticket. I always assumed they filled the holds with cocaine and the the passenger carrying was just a front.
1 Like
I like the saying about the C130/Hercules, that they made it quiet by putting all the noise on the inside.
2 Likes
And the A380 is lovely to fly in. I think the Dreamliner is probably just as nice, but havenāt had a go yet.
JAL are apparently going to continue over-flying the Sankoku Islands, which China has declared their airspace (load of rubbish), so I wonāt just yet be going to Tokyo to check out the Dreamliner ride.
1 Like
Interesting
In my calculation, the cost of fuel was about three orders of magnitude over the cost of the flight crew, and I only had them flying twice a day. Even if this reduces them to one flight a day a reduction in fuel use would make it a net win.
However, it is important to remember that Zeppelins have numerous problems too. Not the least of witch is landing and securing the craft to the ground at a windy airport. I also wonder how much fuel you are planning to save with a Zeppelin traveling at 120kt. Drag is roughly the cross section of the aircraft times the speed squared. Lighter than Air craft typically save fuel by going relatively slowly, but thatās not what these guys are promising.
1 Like
Great start, but flying the plane for 11 years will require hundreds of thousands in maintenance from engine re-builds to complete tear-downs, not to mention avionics upgrades over that decade of tech advancement.
The big miss here is baggage. Not passenger baggage fees, but shipments. IIRC, that accounts for something like half of all airline revenues. Commercial packages under your feet (often unscreened, although that may have changed in the past few years).
All that aside, pay-off in a decade for a 30-year item, not bad really. Youāre minting money the last 19 years in your scenario above. Definitely worth the investment!
I think maybe I knew about the āEgyptianā, but I didnāt know that about teh jebus. Funny, Europeans didnāt treat them any the better for it.
The English term Gypsy (or Gipsy) originates from the Middle English gypcian, short for Egipcien. It is ultimately derived from the Greek Īį¼°Ī³ĻĻĻĪ¹ĪæĪ¹ (Aigyptioi), via Middle French and Latin. It was once believed that the Romanies, or some other Gypsy groups (such as the Balkan Egyptians), originated in Egypt, and in one narrative were exiled as punishment for allegedly harbouring the infant Jesus.
A 737-800 burns 4.88 gallons of fuel per seat per hour, compared with the comparable A320ās burn of 5.13 gallons per seat per hour, according to The Airline Monitor, an industry publication.
So, for a 150 seat configuration, and a 1.1 hour flight, thatās 805 gallons of fuel, at $9.18 per gallon (the price at National Airport), for a total of $7400 in fuelā83 tickets@$89 each.
Of course, if you buy your fuel in bulk, the calculations are even more in your favor. But then, all this is back of the envelope stuff.
Thatās a much shorter flight than I was working on. With a 1.1 hour flight you could have 4 or more turnarounds per day, further reducing cost.
