I know they're still in demand for their ability to land on gravel runways, and used by northern airlines for that purpose. Not sure what other jets of that size are able to do that.

Many of the Russian airliners were built for marginal runways.

Re: an Air Force One replacement:

The government has issued RFIs to Boeing and Airbus, but Airbus has said it's not interested in responding. Obviously they think there's no chance a European company can win a contest to transport a US president. You won't see Audi building presidential limousines either.

The current SAM 742s in presidential service will be 30 years old in a few years, they started duty in 1988 or '89 (I don't think Reagan ever had the 742s), which will be somewhat longer than the 707s were around. I suspect that when they announce the 748 line closure, the Air Force will negotiate to take up the last few slots for presidential transport and E-4 (NEAP / "doomsday aircraft") replacements. That will keep the 747 planform in the public eye through 2050 or so, long after most airlines have retired theirs.

Yes, although I never really understood why LH ordered the 747 as well as the A380s which form the backbone of its larger intercontinental fleet.

I read the USA Today article and it was clearly written by a correspondent who has never strayed far from Peoria. There is a world outside the USA, and large aircraft have a role to play in that world. More and more airports are slot controlled or slot limited. That changes the economics of aircraft utilisation. Likewise, there are favored flight times when crossing multiple time zones and it's not always convenient flying several flights at essentially the same time.

Yes the 747/380 makes no sense flying from SFO-LAX, but it makes a lot of sense flying between DXB and LHR for example.

Anyhow, ultra-large aircraft will be flying on major routes regularly for the next 30 or 40 years at least, even if neither Boeing nor Airbus sells one again.

Don't aircraft like 777 and 787 make the 747 obsolete? I can remember taking the DC9 ATL - TPA, but others made it obsolete

Smaller long-range aircraft make it possible to operate so-called "long, thin" routes, e.g. nonstop service between two second-tier cities. AUS-LHR, for example, which BA is opening with a 787 next year; you'd never see that route served with a 747. As route maps shift to emphasize long, thin routes the case for the 747 diminishes, as fewer long-haul flyers have to shuttle to a major hub to catch one. (Pan Am's whole network was built to get most passengers to JFK to catch transatlantic 747s; in the 1960s and 1970s the idea of transatlantic nonstops departing from PIT, CVG, CLT, was unthinkable, mostly because such markets were too small to fill up a 747, DC-10, or L-1011. It wasn't until the 1980s that 767s, and soon other twinjets, were allowed on intercontinental long-hauls.)

There will always be a business case for VLAs to serve the world's top 20 air hubs, particularly as slots there grow more precious. It's just a narrower case than before, and the population of VLAs (747s and A380s) will continue to decline.

In support of your statement about "the population of VLAs (747s and A380s) will continue to decline".

The 777-9X has the same passenger load and range as the 747 and carries more freight (I believe the 777-300ER carries more freight than a 744).

http://www.aspireaviation.com/2013/1...-777x-success/

You'll have to scroll down towards the end of the web page (it is long). There is a comparison table between the A350, 777X and 787 models.

Going forward, the only routes that will require a 748 or 388 will be routes that suffer from ETOPS restrictions. And as ETOPS restrictions get looser and looser, those routes will eventually disappear.

The 847-400/500/600/700/900

will be a triple decker up to 900 passenger 6 engine behemoth that will fly around the world, JFK-BOM-SYD-LAX-GRU-LHR-PEK-JFK flight. So yes the 747 will be around for at least 15 more years.

Quite a bit of uninformed rubbish being offered as the truth here, which I shall attempt to rectify.

The suggestions that the future of the 747 has any relevance or connection to US domestic traffic or US based carriers, points to a total lack of knowledge of the world aviation scene. US carriers haven't ordered a 747 sized aircraft in decades, and only AA have even bothered to get the next biggest thing (77W). Nobody predicts any passenger VLA market with US carriers, least of all the people who produce the things. It may be worth having a look at the Boeing and Airbus projections; North America will soon seize to be the biggest aviation market - China will take that place. It is also not in the US the two big manufacturers are seeing the growth, far from it. It's in the Middle East, Asia-Pacific, Europe and then the US.

Some people have also been taking for granted the marketing gossip emanating from an aircraft manufacturer, namely that a B747-8i will burn less fuel per seat than an A380. But that is only true if you use the Boeing standard seating for the 747 and the Airbus standard seating for the A380. Since those two standards are not the same, it's comparing apples to oranges. The truth is, as should be expected given the generational gaps between the products, is that an A380 will burn less fuel per seat than a 747-8i with an equivalent seating standard.

As for the future of the 747, the order book speaks its own clear language. There are less than 60 unfulfilled orders, 45 or so are freighters. Boeing are currently building white tailed freighters and flying them directly to the desert, and has reduced output twice recently and are now down to 1,75 aircraft per month. There are no signs of any major new order, their best hope is probably that Air China or Korean Air might order 10 more in total between them. Then the curtain will fall over the production of passenger airline 747s, but they will continue to grace the skies for many decades to come.

Finally, the A380 is not in competition with the 747-8 over a possible Air Force One order. Mainly because no such tender has been issued, secondly because Airbus have already made it clear they have no intention of entering such a competition, for all of the obvious reasons. Though I suppose it would be fun checking in on Fox News if Obama ordered a 'French' jet.

True, but the existing stock will probably do for many years to come. But it's not the fuel-guzzling inefficiency of the 737-200 that makes it well-suited to gravel runways, right?

I would guess that the smaller diameter low-bypass engines on the -200 are what make it suitable for less improved runways. Newer 737s have high-bypass engines with their larger diameters that put the bottom lip of the engine closer to the ground. It also appears that the availability of a gravelkit for the -200 is what makes it preferred for those uses.

UA took its last 744 in late 2000, NW in late 2002, so a decade and a smidgen?

My reference was to the order date, not delivery. Decade and and a somewhat larger smidgen then. Still doesn't distract from the fact no US based carriers are in the market for a VLA the size of a 747-8 or A380, and therefore the US market has zero relevance to the production of these types.

Another freshly painted 747 Freighter rolled out of the paint hangar at Everett yesterday. Good thing noone's buying them. This is for Cathay Pacific.

...And some airline will jam it to the gills with 31" x 17" Y seats...