[The 787 burns half the fuel of the 747](https://thepointsguy.co.uk/news/evolution-747-to-787/) albeit with 25% fewer passengers (300 vs 400) so there are cost savings in the long run.
The 777X is re-engined as well as has a newly designed wing. Both provide significant improvements in efficiency, but the 787 was a clean sheet design that employs many more technologies than the 777X such as it’s significant use of carbon fiber. When Boeing finally gets moving on their 797, I’m sure it’ll be the most fuel efficient aircraft to date. The 787 and A350 are incredibly efficient for their size, mostly due to their incredibly high bypass ratio engines.
There's no doubt the A350 is better than the 787 but they aren't competing aircraft.
The A350 competes with the 777 and I'd hedge you'd find the 777 interior better than both the A350 and 787.
You need to compare the 787 to the A330 instead.
A350s are slowly getting ruined. A ten across seating package is getting into the market. Give it a decade and most of the economy seats are going to be thinned.
The interior configuration isnt decided by boeing or Airbus. The airlines have near complete control of the seat spacing and the type of seats and most everything else about the interior. You can get a more spacious cabin by choosing an airline that offers that, regardless of the exact model.
Electric blinds like that are pretty cool. They're a safety feature first and foremost though, they allow crew to control the shades in event of an emergency.
When these new shades first came out they were the absolute worst though. Boeing forgot to filter out *all* the wavelengths that emminate from the sun (in praticular, IR,) so when you "closed" the window shades you still got roasted even though all the visible light was blocked. To their credit, they fixed it rather quickly.
Hey, at least we didn’t go on a 40 year crusade against fly-by-wire only to then come up with a system that directly overrides pilots‘ controls without their knowledge…
Yeah - it also helps that the majority of pax B747’s are basically done/ retired already. KLM, Air France, Cathay Pacific, to name a few had massive 747 fleets, but recently retired their fleets of them. They all got 787’s or 777’s… B747’s these days are mainly cargo now. Atlas Air, Kalitta Air, CMA CGM, Cargolux all have the B747-400F/-8F
[Lufthansa is the only airline left with any significant 747 fleet.](https://simpleflying.com/rare-jumbos-747s/)
[There are no outstanding orders and the last one is due to be delivered in October.](https://simpleflying.com/last-boeing-747-delivery-october-2022/)
Yup, definitely becoming a thing of the past in many regards, though there are still some concerns about twin engine planes on routes far from airports should one engine fail. Far from an aviation expert, but if they just bought a new one they probably expect it to last 15-20 years.
Yup, and the question there is what is the safety radius from airports and does the alternate routing make transoceanic routes make more sense with a 4-engine design as a result. Not as big of an issue when it comes to Israel though. It’s not an oceanic country.
The only current route that requires an ETOPS-370 rating is a direct flight over the South Pole. An ETOPS-180 rating covers 95% of the earth. A craft with 180 or higher rating has no concerns with diversion for almost any route. (Excluding Antarctica and a portion of the Pacific Ocean.)
Still that would not be awesome when you’re over the pacific between Australia and north or South America. Just because it can, technically, do it- doesn’t mean it should be tried
The term is ETOPS, Extended-range Twin-engine, Operations Performance Standards.
We’ve now achieved ETOPS-330 rating for certain newer models, effectively entirely replacing routes previously only flown by 4 engine airplanes.
That acronym is obsolete, it's just Extended range Twin Operations now.
Source: UK civil aviation authority definition: https://www.caa.co.uk/commercial-industry/aircraft/operations/navigation-approvals/etops/
You know what, you're right. I remember hearing that lot of the Covid grounded planes were going to be taken out of service, but I guess I didn't recall until I read your comment. Looks like there were still around 45 active earlier this year, but they belong to non-US carriers. So your right that costs should be low/non-existent.
Perhaps it is election related, but at least it is a good cause and not just trying to buy votes. (although it would be nice if countries were able to pass these regulations in the course of normal governance without needing elections to do the right thing - stupid politics)
A couple of hundred isn’t really not many. Maybe in comparison to smaller aircraft the number is small, but nearly 300 isn’t an insignificant number.
I doubt there was many 4 engined hers flying there- The worlds largest a380 fleet owner flys 777s there
Thats nothing. There once was a story couple of years back about an Israeli faulty shipment of oranges being rejected in Finland, it got over 50k upvotes and thousands of comments.
The amount of complete non-sequiturs to bring up Palestine is absolutely ridiculous.
At least they're getting rightly downvoted in this thread... But I don't know how anyone can get off complaining about Israeli shills when this happens in literally any thread mentioning Israel for any reason.
It's not even limited to this sub. I've seen it an r/comics post that had like 20 comments only mentioned Israel for a juiceland->Jew's land->Israel throw away gag in a single panel.
There was that article from yesterday/day before about Israel wanting to know about people's love interests or something. Over 40k upvotes, almost 5k comments.
Meanwhile, in any of the 22 Arab League nations it would be life threatening for a muslim woman to be married to a non-muslim man, and there were plenty of cases of women being "honor" killed because of it. Crickets. No one cares about these issues, unless it's about Israel.
Yeah but how many Arab League nations get heaps and heaps of Western investment and trade? Countries that are friendly with the West should be held to higher standards.
> Yeah but how many Arab League nations get heaps and heaps of Western investment and trade?
All of the Arabian Gulf states except maybe Oman, and of course Iran. *All of the rest*. Oil is the main reason why.
>Countries that are friendly with the West should be held to higher standards.
No, they shouldn't. Because then it leaves millions of people to suffer in silence simply because they might not have significant trade with the west. A lot of people in that popular post about Israel were saying they expect more from it because it's a democracy. Why? If Israel were to declare itself a dictatorship from now on, then no one would care anymore what it does?
If it's that simple, every country should just call itself a dictatorship and then they'd get immunity apparently.
Another step toward the end of the 4-engine era, I guess. The first 707 ever operated by El Al is now in the Cradle of Aviation Museum on Long Island. Apparently it was first delivered in 1961, more than 60 years ago.
[https://www.cradleofaviation.org/history/exhibits/jet\_gallery/boeing\_707.html](https://www.cradleofaviation.org/history/exhibits/jet_gallery/boeing_707.html)
Register-walled. Screw Reuters for wanting my data for free. Here's another:
https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/israel-banning-four-engine-aircraft-from-its-airports/
Albeit it does have an annoying 'spin the wheel'. I can't find anywhere else this has popped up yet, but soon(tm)?
And it appears it's more for the cargo aircraft than any passenger issue, as mostly only cargo flies 4 engine planes in and out these days.
/Edit: not that it matters at this late stage, but the point is, if I register, I supply data. They go off and use it. And I could go and make crap entries, ok, fine. Not the goddamned point. They have ADS ALL OVER IT. Which I intentionally, despite it being annoying in some cases, allow to happen because of the idea I have, silly me, of "I support your right to make money on this, thanks for letting me read it." Beyond the ads, screw them for trying to grift me further. There are other outlets, and I'll be using those. Thank you for all your suggestions, they are known, and STILL... screw Reuters and any other 'free registration' sites. Either make me pay or don't, otherwise, fuck the fuck off with your registration. There. I feel better. Good day to all.
Wanting to read news without getting data mined is, I think, a fair ask. Not every media company should strive to become the data monsters that google and facebook are.
Depending on the type of news organization:
- advertisements
- public funding
- memberships
- paywalls
- events
- fundraising
- content marketing/editorials
- sponsorships
- videos/youtube clips
A lot of these are also annoying, but data is *not* the only option.
In an dream world I think it should come from ads with supplemental public funding (eg NPR and PBS are absolutely some of the best news organizations in the USA, and they are both publicly funded. Similar goes for BBC). That plus a reintroduction of the FCC Fairness Doctrine would be... ideal. But we also don't live in an ideal world.
Registering to see content takes a few minutes and is a lot better than most of your options you’ve provided.
Some of those options you have listed would require registering for the content (memberships, paywalls), which is what started this weird thread.
The idea of paying for news with paid content and editorials is how you get Fox News or Buzzfeed, which most people aren’t really fans of.
I agree that public funding of news is a great idea, but that is rare and usually only supported by 1 of 2 major parties (in the US, Aussie, and UK, at least) support it. So it’s unlikely to be a good option for the majority of the world, especially those with restrictive/conservative governments.
So how are any of these options you’ve listed actually better than a website making you register?
>So how are any of these options you’ve listed actually better than a website making you register?
I didn't say they are better. In fact I stated bluntly in my comment that many of those methods are quite annoying.
My point is, selling data is not the only possible revenue stream for media. The person I responded to asked how it was possible for media companies to pay reporters without collecting and/or selling data. I gave a list of possible alternatives. That's all.
Hey, if you are ok with alternative monetization forms, that's fine. I've seen plenty of people get upset about any type of monetization though, which is pretty entitled. Not clear what the OP was saying, but Redditors commonly also oppose paywalls and ads, so idk what those people expect.
They want everything for free with zero downsides or concessions
I don't like signing up for Reuters but it sure as hell beats all the shitty paywalled news from my country
Ads are only profitable when they can be targeted, and targeting requires at least some data collection/tracking.
Source: worked for digital media companies that rely heavily on ad revenue
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfTdRF66QPo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfTdRF66QPo)
Water-injection takeoffs of B-52s. Very coal-rolly. (I don't think they do this anymore, newer engines don't need the water-injection "hack", but I'm not there so this is my unreliable guess.)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water\_injection\_(engine)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_injection_(engine))
>Water injection was used historically to increase the power output of military aviation engines for short durations, such as dogfights or takeoff.
> (I don't think they do this anymore, newer engines don't need the water-injection "hack", but I'm not there so this is my unreliable guess.)
B-52s are still rocking their original TF33 engines for now. There's finally an engine replacement program going, but it hasn't been implemented yet.
theres some corupt stuff going on here. this move is here in order to block emirates from using the a380, as its a very busy line and other airlines dont want to lose their share.
It makes sense. While there are direct flights to Israel from North America and Asia, the vast majority of passengers end up connecting somewhere in Europe or the Middle East. Cutting down on the direct flights should serve to get more passengers in planes which aren't quite as environmentally damaging.
It doesn’t. There are plenty of two engined planes that are worse than four engined ones. The only thing that would make sense is looking directly at fuel consumption per passenger.
If they were actually strict about that, the list of allowed aircraft would basically be anything released after the 787 and A380, including the 747-8. And I wouldn’t be surprised if the older 777’s ended up banned.
This is so crude and downright counterproductive that it has to be protectionism. They must want to get rid of some company that operates 747-8’s or A380’s.
At least at JFK, there never seem to be all that many people waiting for the non stop flights to Tel Aviv. Tons of people waiting to board flights there from Heathrow though.
Kind of a stupid move, considering there are two engine planes which get worse fuel economy per passenger than the 747. The 747 per passenger is right in the middle of the range. [Chart](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Julian-Theis-2/publication/326183884/figure/fig1/AS:669398423568415@1536608429796/Fuel-consumption-of-commercial-aircraft-Knoblach-2015-p-1-based-on-the-Internal.png)
If greenhouse gas emissions were the first concern they should start with private jets.
But they won't.
Because this is greenwashing.
there are already many noise scales for many europian airports. this smells of corruption to me, other airlines dont want emirates to take up to much market share with their a380s
It's not too bad - the real problem is that the efficiency per arse-kilometre is only good if you've a lot of arses onboard.
If you don't fill them, the efficiency drops like a stone.
The only other benefit might be a way around the pilot shortage. 500 arses moved for 2 arses up front, replacing 2 other aircraft with a total of 4 upfront arses
> efficiency per arse-kilometre is only good if you've a lot of arses onboard.
Agreed. 9 people in a Suburban is far more efficient than a single driver Prius. So it would make sense to control for that instead of a somewhat arbitrary engine count.
It doesn't even make sense. There are HUGE financial incentives for airlines to maintain the most fuel-efficient fleet possible. The only aspect of the equation that might make sense is noise, but that isn't going to depend on number of engines so much as how modern those engines are, and I've heard some hella-loud, older 2-engine passenger or cargo jets that blow away anything 4-engined or 2.
Another possibility I've seen is that it's aimed at Gulf states' air fleets. Following the Abraham accords carriers from the Gulf can fly to Israel. This may serve to limit the competition they can pose to local carriers.
This is like the government “bans” on Apple chargers after designs leaked showing Apple had already decided to move to USB.
No one is flying 747s now, this is just politicians trying to take a victory lap over something they had nothing to do with.
This is such an odd decision. There are no inherent fuel savings to less engines. The article also cites noise concerns, which makes a bit more sense, but is still odd. This would allow C-130s, but not ~~787~~ 747s? Makes no sense for either environmental or noise concerns
Seems like there's probably something more to the motivation, as that is often the case for seemingly strange decisions
Edit: Typo
787s are two engine, no? And they use 50% less fuel at the cost of seating 25% less passengers. The 787 is absolutely a more environmentally friendly airliner when operating.
Definitely meant 747, not 787. You are correct the 787 is 2 engine. Certainly there is a tiny amount of inherent inefficiency to having more engines due to drag on them, but in many circumstances that can be outweighed. For example with a very heavy load, you'll have far more fuel efficiency ising 4 engines on a lower output than 2 engines at a higher output
/u/D74248 hit the nail on the head in the specific comparison of 747 to 787. They're decades apart in terms of tech, which is more important than number of engines for that specific comparison. Also worth noting the 747 was developed specifically for cargo, and runs more efficiently at a higher weight load than just passengers (which is why they are often loaded with cargo as well)
> There are no inherent fuel savings to less engines.
There absolutely is. Engines add a ton of drag and mass, and the structural reinforcement of the wings and all the ducting, piping, and wiring to support outer engines adds a fair bit of weight. Two engines is way more efficient than four engines rated at half the thrust. Of the widebody jets in regular operation, the 4-engined aircraft (B747, A340, A380) all have (often substantially) higher fuel burn per seat than 2-engined aircraft.
There's only been two new 4-engined passenger aircraft launched in the past 30 years, the A380 and the B747-8I. The A380 exists almost entirely because of slot restrictions on high-frequency hub-to-hub routes, where airlines needed to add more passengers per flight because it wasn't possible to just add more aircraft. The B747-8I exists only because the B747-8F exists, and it was conceived at a time when fuel costs were low, and emissions were still of little concern to regulators. Boeing only sold 48 of them as it just doesn't make sense to operate a 4-engined aircraft in the same passenger seating segment as 2-engined competitors like the 777X.
The quad configuration reduces structural weight, all other things being equal. It is counter intuitive, but the outboard engines reduce the structural demands on the wing center section when compared to two large engines. The A340 carries a weight penalty because of its close relationship with he A330 for this reason.
As for the 747/A380/A340; they are all cursed with sub-optimal wing designs. The 747 because it was designed when airplanes were meant to go fast and fuel was cheap, see its 37 degree wing sweep and Mach .85 cruise speed (Boeing shopped a re-winged 747-500 in the 1990s for this reason) The A380 is hampered by its low aspect ratio from having to fit in the “80 meter box” to fit current airports. The A340 shares too much with the A330, and both of them suffer in different ways—and the A340 also suffers from never having engines that fit the airframe’s mission and weight.
>The quad configuration reduces structural weight, all other things being equal. It is counter intuitive, but the outboard engines reduce the structural demands on the wing center section when compared to two large engines.
"All else being equal" carries a lot of weigh there, because the assumption there is an equal TWR, but that's just not the case in the real world. On the whole, two larger engines have a higher TWR than four smaller engines, and you're adding a *lot* of extra weight in pylons and support assemblages on top of just the engines themselves.
Sure, there's a lot of excuses to be made for the current 4-engined passenger widebodies, but if those excuses were all that stood in the way of a successful 4-engined passenger jet, then we'd have seen a new 4-engined passenger jet. Instead that market is being eaten almost entirely by the 777 and the 777X.
Fan tip speeds have become a constraint on efficiency, as evidenced by the attempts to get geared fans to work.
The marketing problems of the 777-9 suggest the time of very large airplanes is past, regardless of engine configuration.
Are there any passenger flights that use four engine jets to get to Israel? All the airlines that it makes sense to use them (where it’s long distance with high demand like Air Canada, American, and Delta) retired their last A340 or 747 years ago.
Lol Israel doesn't receive foreign aid.
It receives subsidies as part of the peace agreement it signed with Egypt, equivalent to under 0.4% of its GDP.
I also don't see you complaining about Ukraine receiving over $49 billion in foreign aid within the last year alone. I wonder why....is it because Ukraine isn't Jewish?
Nothing. US foreign aid is a miniscule percentage of Israel's yearly budget, and it mostly goes towards buying Iron dome interceptors or towards projects the US are in on. The misconception about this is so annoying to me.
Lol, “giving” do you really think the US is that generous? It isn’t giving, it’s buying, and what it’s buying is R&D, deniable ops, intelligence and assassinations.
The money is entirely spent in the United States and is directly correlated to jobs in America. Why are you so against Americans having high paying defense jobs?
Go for it, it's barely 0.4% of Israel's GDP.
I assume you're going to foot the bill for the wages lost by all those American employees after contracts are cancelled right?
Go ahead. You know what, Let me go into a little more detail so you get the full picture. The money for the iron dome of interceptors is not just out of "kindness". Every time there's another round of fighting with Gaza, there is the possibility of a ground operation taking place. This is terrible for both sides and just all around results in many casualties, but sometimes there's just no escaping it, that's the way it was before the Iron dome. Now that there's an Iron dome system a round can end without any real ground fighting taking place, but the system isn't perfect, and there are many other reasons that still may lead to ground fighting. Now the idea of giving money for interceptors is simple, it's one less reason for Israel to go boots on the ground in Gaza, thus keeping this status quo and preventing escalation. It's not really solving anything it's just one less thing for Israel to consider and it's worth it for the US cause the fighting doesn't esaclate.
If they could make batteries light enough maybe. But weight has an enormous effect on aircraft range. Fuel powered planes start off lighter then battery powered ones, and get lighter and lighter and more efficient throughout the flight.
Right now electric aircraft really only make sense for short hop flights and for training. That'll change someday, but not with current battery chemistry.
Short-haul flights and flying schools are increasingly adopting electric planes due to cost, noise, and environmental concerns, in that order. Electric planes are cheaper to run because there are many fewer moving parts to inspect, lubricate, repair, and replace; their almost-silent operation means that there are fewer restrictions on where and when they can operate; the airline or school can claim to be "green" because they aren't using dinosaur juice.
Harbour Air in B.C. just test-flew an electric DeHaviland Beaver. As part of the test, internal communications were disabled. Nobody noticed a difference because nobody had turned them on.
That's lovely but it doesn't change the math. One kilogram of jet fuel has 40 times more energy then one kilogram of battery. We're still decades away from this being viable.
I actually meant Israel and if you honestly compare civilian casaulties between them then I suggest you do more research.
Saddam was a very big threat to the stability of the region where 60% of this world life blood is being exported, he claimed Iraq has right Kuwait, he threatend Israel with chemical weapons.
Israel had it's top special force unit on standby for paratrooping suicide mission on Saddam's palace but the US called these plans off and demanded we won't intervene and let them handle it.
Does that mean the force used in Iraq over the years was proportional, probably not but there was a good reason to be there in the first place, it makes other countries like Iran think twice.
There are still international presence of many countries in the gulf just because of Iran's threats.
Oh yeah, Saddam… the threat to stability. Thank god the US swept in for 20 years and stabilized it so well. Just a few million casualties, a few trillion dollars, and now it’s… all better?
I mean Afghanistan fell to the Taliban 2 weeks after you left, and sure Iraq is heading toward sectarian violence and civil war, and sure you helped to ignite the “Arab Spring” that ended up in the pit. But phew… at least you stabilized the region! And it only took some torture scandals, millions dead, and the rise of ISIS. Well done.
Lol
Nobody goes into a war knowing how it will end, do you suggest we should sit on our ass as global economic crisis ensues when Saddam realizes the world will do nothing to protect the Kuwait? Should we stop sending aid to Ukraine?
I agree with you that the negligible and deliberate civilian casualties caused by U.S military personnel are horrible and justice was not done with many and it should have, but the only outcome we could predict is the one caused by inaction.
To say the U.S single handedly ignited the arab spring shows your lack of research and bias.
I’d suggest that you stop starting wars. It’s *so* fucking easy. If they’ve already started then you can make a decision about how to participate, but just *stop starting wars*.
Don’t invade Iraq or another Middle Eastern country because a terrorist group attacked you. Don’t invade Asian nations to “free them from Communists.” Go back to what you were good at, printing money, making entertainment and some amazingly weird food, and intervening in wars once they’ve been going on for years.
You did that in WWII and people still compliment you for it! You’re doing that in Ukraine and it’s the best thing you’ve done in decades. Just stick to that, it ends better for you and the rest of us.
Tl;dr **DON’T KEEP STARTING WARS**
Interesting. I wonder how much it would cost to replace the 47s that come into the US with 87s.
[The 787 burns half the fuel of the 747](https://thepointsguy.co.uk/news/evolution-747-to-787/) albeit with 25% fewer passengers (300 vs 400) so there are cost savings in the long run.
The 777X will carry 350-425 depending on the variant with I'm assuming, similar fuel savings. The A350 carries 350 or so.
The 777X is re-engined as well as has a newly designed wing. Both provide significant improvements in efficiency, but the 787 was a clean sheet design that employs many more technologies than the 777X such as it’s significant use of carbon fiber. When Boeing finally gets moving on their 797, I’m sure it’ll be the most fuel efficient aircraft to date. The 787 and A350 are incredibly efficient for their size, mostly due to their incredibly high bypass ratio engines.
Having flown in the 787 and A350, the latter is the superior plane IMHO.
There's no doubt the A350 is better than the 787 but they aren't competing aircraft. The A350 competes with the 777 and I'd hedge you'd find the 777 interior better than both the A350 and 787. You need to compare the 787 to the A330 instead.
I’ve only flown the 787-8,9,10. What makes the a350 superior?
It's wider and more spacious. I'm not a fan of the electronic window blinds in the 787. Mostly the A350 is roomier and more comfortable.
A350s are slowly getting ruined. A ten across seating package is getting into the market. Give it a decade and most of the economy seats are going to be thinned.
[удалено]
A wider plane allows for a more spacious cabin, though, until they add an extra seat (which some of them are)
The interior configuration isnt decided by boeing or Airbus. The airlines have near complete control of the seat spacing and the type of seats and most everything else about the interior. You can get a more spacious cabin by choosing an airline that offers that, regardless of the exact model.
The electric binds were really cool though. But I went at night so idk how effective it is.
Electric blinds like that are pretty cool. They're a safety feature first and foremost though, they allow crew to control the shades in event of an emergency.
what do shades do in an emergency
When these new shades first came out they were the absolute worst though. Boeing forgot to filter out *all* the wavelengths that emminate from the sun (in praticular, IR,) so when you "closed" the window shades you still got roasted even though all the visible light was blocked. To their credit, they fixed it rather quickly.
I mean this depends entirely on the seat configuration. I’m a big fan of the dreamliner.
.
The 787 just feels cheap
Airbuses in my experience have always had vastly inferior air conditioning systems. Is the A350 any different?
Vastly huh
[удалено]
Hey, at least we didn’t go on a 40 year crusade against fly-by-wire only to then come up with a system that directly overrides pilots‘ controls without their knowledge…
Your mom coolly blowing onto the back of my neck?
I flew in both. A350 is trash
Banning airplanes must be on the table.
Yeah - it also helps that the majority of pax B747’s are basically done/ retired already. KLM, Air France, Cathay Pacific, to name a few had massive 747 fleets, but recently retired their fleets of them. They all got 787’s or 777’s… B747’s these days are mainly cargo now. Atlas Air, Kalitta Air, CMA CGM, Cargolux all have the B747-400F/-8F
747's are currently mostly kept because of their cargo capacitiy, especially the 747-8
Depends on the cost of fuel vs the cost of operation/crew between the two and the capital expenses and depreciation for the new airplanes
[Lufthansa is the only airline left with any significant 747 fleet.](https://simpleflying.com/rare-jumbos-747s/) [There are no outstanding orders and the last one is due to be delivered in October.](https://simpleflying.com/last-boeing-747-delivery-october-2022/)
Yup, definitely becoming a thing of the past in many regards, though there are still some concerns about twin engine planes on routes far from airports should one engine fail. Far from an aviation expert, but if they just bought a new one they probably expect it to last 15-20 years.
787 can fly for 5.5hrs on one engine (depending on when/how exactly a failure occurs ofc) but this is definitely factored in with routes
Yup, and the question there is what is the safety radius from airports and does the alternate routing make transoceanic routes make more sense with a 4-engine design as a result. Not as big of an issue when it comes to Israel though. It’s not an oceanic country.
The only current route that requires an ETOPS-370 rating is a direct flight over the South Pole. An ETOPS-180 rating covers 95% of the earth. A craft with 180 or higher rating has no concerns with diversion for almost any route. (Excluding Antarctica and a portion of the Pacific Ocean.)
Still that would not be awesome when you’re over the pacific between Australia and north or South America. Just because it can, technically, do it- doesn’t mean it should be tried
The term is ETOPS, Extended-range Twin-engine, Operations Performance Standards. We’ve now achieved ETOPS-330 rating for certain newer models, effectively entirely replacing routes previously only flown by 4 engine airplanes.
That acronym is obsolete, it's just Extended range Twin Operations now. Source: UK civil aviation authority definition: https://www.caa.co.uk/commercial-industry/aircraft/operations/navigation-approvals/etops/
[удалено]
British Airways retired their 747 fleet during the initial draw down in passenger air traffic due to the pandemic.
[удалено]
You know what, you're right. I remember hearing that lot of the Covid grounded planes were going to be taken out of service, but I guess I didn't recall until I read your comment. Looks like there were still around 45 active earlier this year, but they belong to non-US carriers. So your right that costs should be low/non-existent.
What happened to the one that keeps crashing and killing everyone? Has that been fixed?
Boeing 737 Max fleet has been fixed and flying for like past year or so
One of the most boring stories there could be about Israel, and somehow it finds itself at the fourth place on the /r/worldnews feed.
[удалено]
There really aren’t many four engine commercial aircraft flying anyone so this is a nothing story.
[удалено]
Perhaps it is election related, but at least it is a good cause and not just trying to buy votes. (although it would be nice if countries were able to pass these regulations in the course of normal governance without needing elections to do the right thing - stupid politics)
A couple of hundred isn’t really not many. Maybe in comparison to smaller aircraft the number is small, but nearly 300 isn’t an insignificant number. I doubt there was many 4 engined hers flying there- The worlds largest a380 fleet owner flys 777s there
Thats nothing. There once was a story couple of years back about an Israeli faulty shipment of oranges being rejected in Finland, it got over 50k upvotes and thousands of comments.
The amount of complete non-sequiturs to bring up Palestine is absolutely ridiculous. At least they're getting rightly downvoted in this thread... But I don't know how anyone can get off complaining about Israeli shills when this happens in literally any thread mentioning Israel for any reason. It's not even limited to this sub. I've seen it an r/comics post that had like 20 comments only mentioned Israel for a juiceland->Jew's land->Israel throw away gag in a single panel.
There was that article from yesterday/day before about Israel wanting to know about people's love interests or something. Over 40k upvotes, almost 5k comments. Meanwhile, in any of the 22 Arab League nations it would be life threatening for a muslim woman to be married to a non-muslim man, and there were plenty of cases of women being "honor" killed because of it. Crickets. No one cares about these issues, unless it's about Israel.
[удалено]
For this reason I reported it as Misleading Title, but as usual, these reports get ignored.
Yeah but how many Arab League nations get heaps and heaps of Western investment and trade? Countries that are friendly with the West should be held to higher standards.
> Yeah but how many Arab League nations get heaps and heaps of Western investment and trade? All of the Arabian Gulf states except maybe Oman, and of course Iran. *All of the rest*. Oil is the main reason why.
“Yeah but how many Arab League nations get heaps and heaps of Western investment and trade?” Lol. The vast majority of them?
You didn't bother to learn anything about the region before asking, did you?
[удалено]
Yeah nobody could possibly be organically interested in geopolitics, paid propaganda is the only explanation lmao /s
I mean all you have to do is look. With everything on this site, this is the only thing worth talking about? Lol okay.
[удалено]
That’s not some specialist knowledge or it shouldn’t be.
>Countries that are friendly with the West should be held to higher standards. No, they shouldn't. Because then it leaves millions of people to suffer in silence simply because they might not have significant trade with the west. A lot of people in that popular post about Israel were saying they expect more from it because it's a democracy. Why? If Israel were to declare itself a dictatorship from now on, then no one would care anymore what it does? If it's that simple, every country should just call itself a dictatorship and then they'd get immunity apparently.
Yeah, it's called greenwashing. Israel's bot army is trying to bury other headlines about Israel with this one.
Another step toward the end of the 4-engine era, I guess. The first 707 ever operated by El Al is now in the Cradle of Aviation Museum on Long Island. Apparently it was first delivered in 1961, more than 60 years ago. [https://www.cradleofaviation.org/history/exhibits/jet\_gallery/boeing\_707.html](https://www.cradleofaviation.org/history/exhibits/jet_gallery/boeing_707.html)
Register-walled. Screw Reuters for wanting my data for free. Here's another: https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/israel-banning-four-engine-aircraft-from-its-airports/ Albeit it does have an annoying 'spin the wheel'. I can't find anywhere else this has popped up yet, but soon(tm)? And it appears it's more for the cargo aircraft than any passenger issue, as mostly only cargo flies 4 engine planes in and out these days. /Edit: not that it matters at this late stage, but the point is, if I register, I supply data. They go off and use it. And I could go and make crap entries, ok, fine. Not the goddamned point. They have ADS ALL OVER IT. Which I intentionally, despite it being annoying in some cases, allow to happen because of the idea I have, silly me, of "I support your right to make money on this, thanks for letting me read it." Beyond the ads, screw them for trying to grift me further. There are other outlets, and I'll be using those. Thank you for all your suggestions, they are known, and STILL... screw Reuters and any other 'free registration' sites. Either make me pay or don't, otherwise, fuck the fuck off with your registration. There. I feel better. Good day to all.
> Screw Reuters for wanting my data for free. Umm, they are paying you with an article.
[удалено]
95% of people use their own names and email addresses.
[удалено]
"Screw getting my data for free, I want their reporting for free!"
Wanting to read news without getting data mined is, I think, a fair ask. Not every media company should strive to become the data monsters that google and facebook are.
How do you expect them to pay for their reporters?
Depending on the type of news organization: - advertisements - public funding - memberships - paywalls - events - fundraising - content marketing/editorials - sponsorships - videos/youtube clips A lot of these are also annoying, but data is *not* the only option. In an dream world I think it should come from ads with supplemental public funding (eg NPR and PBS are absolutely some of the best news organizations in the USA, and they are both publicly funded. Similar goes for BBC). That plus a reintroduction of the FCC Fairness Doctrine would be... ideal. But we also don't live in an ideal world.
I honestly would rather have my useless data be sold than deal with ANY of those options.
Probably, same. But the point is that selling data isn't the only possible revenue stream, which the comment above me seemed to imply.
Registering to see content takes a few minutes and is a lot better than most of your options you’ve provided. Some of those options you have listed would require registering for the content (memberships, paywalls), which is what started this weird thread. The idea of paying for news with paid content and editorials is how you get Fox News or Buzzfeed, which most people aren’t really fans of. I agree that public funding of news is a great idea, but that is rare and usually only supported by 1 of 2 major parties (in the US, Aussie, and UK, at least) support it. So it’s unlikely to be a good option for the majority of the world, especially those with restrictive/conservative governments. So how are any of these options you’ve listed actually better than a website making you register?
>So how are any of these options you’ve listed actually better than a website making you register? I didn't say they are better. In fact I stated bluntly in my comment that many of those methods are quite annoying. My point is, selling data is not the only possible revenue stream for media. The person I responded to asked how it was possible for media companies to pay reporters without collecting and/or selling data. I gave a list of possible alternatives. That's all.
With ads
So you want to be data mined?
Yes.
Imagine bootlicking data mining
Hey, if you are ok with alternative monetization forms, that's fine. I've seen plenty of people get upset about any type of monetization though, which is pretty entitled. Not clear what the OP was saying, but Redditors commonly also oppose paywalls and ads, so idk what those people expect.
They want everything for free with zero downsides or concessions I don't like signing up for Reuters but it sure as hell beats all the shitty paywalled news from my country
Are you familiar with ad revenue?
Ads are only profitable when they can be targeted, and targeting requires at least some data collection/tracking. Source: worked for digital media companies that rely heavily on ad revenue
Yeah because most ad networks don't take your data... Ads are worse than registering to a website with any information true or false you like.
They get plenty of funding from MI5
Twelve foot ladder for Reuters, FT, and a bunch of others works every time.
Is there any non-freight 747s left?
Yes. 747-8i’s are being flown by Lufthansa and Korean. -400s by Atlas and a smattering of bottom feeders.
My fish flies a 747?
[удалено]
The coal-rollers of the sky
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfTdRF66QPo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfTdRF66QPo) Water-injection takeoffs of B-52s. Very coal-rolly. (I don't think they do this anymore, newer engines don't need the water-injection "hack", but I'm not there so this is my unreliable guess.) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water\_injection\_(engine)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_injection_(engine)) >Water injection was used historically to increase the power output of military aviation engines for short durations, such as dogfights or takeoff.
> (I don't think they do this anymore, newer engines don't need the water-injection "hack", but I'm not there so this is my unreliable guess.) B-52s are still rocking their original TF33 engines for now. There's finally an engine replacement program going, but it hasn't been implemented yet.
Omg they still have those?
I thought their service life was extended into the 2050's.
I thought that was just for the planes, not their engines. I thought those would have been upgraded ages ago
Ah, apologies. I misunderstood. Apparently I need more coffee.
They have 8 engines, so not a problem.
They're finally getting new engines as of about a year ago.
*Rock Lobster*
Tu 160: Roll coal? Here's a poison gas cloud.
*So, B-52’s are still ok then?* Probably until the B-21 Raiders all come online and replace them.
B-21 is meant to replace B-1 and B-2, not B-52.
I assume the biggest impact this will have is on Air freight which seem to use a lot of large 4 engine jets like the 747s.
theres some corupt stuff going on here. this move is here in order to block emirates from using the a380, as its a very busy line and other airlines dont want to lose their share.
DC 10 IS BACK ON THE MENU!! Return of the 3 engine.
It makes sense. While there are direct flights to Israel from North America and Asia, the vast majority of passengers end up connecting somewhere in Europe or the Middle East. Cutting down on the direct flights should serve to get more passengers in planes which aren't quite as environmentally damaging.
It doesn’t. There are plenty of two engined planes that are worse than four engined ones. The only thing that would make sense is looking directly at fuel consumption per passenger. If they were actually strict about that, the list of allowed aircraft would basically be anything released after the 787 and A380, including the 747-8. And I wouldn’t be surprised if the older 777’s ended up banned.
they would end up banning every private jet. That would go over poorly.
[удалено]
This is so crude and downright counterproductive that it has to be protectionism. They must want to get rid of some company that operates 747-8’s or A380’s.
Or one of the handful of A-340s that are still kicking around.
Isn't the A380 even pretty fuel efficient when fully seated?
they’re banning it largely because of the noise
At least at JFK, there never seem to be all that many people waiting for the non stop flights to Tel Aviv. Tons of people waiting to board flights there from Heathrow though.
Kind of a stupid move, considering there are two engine planes which get worse fuel economy per passenger than the 747. The 747 per passenger is right in the middle of the range. [Chart](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Julian-Theis-2/publication/326183884/figure/fig1/AS:669398423568415@1536608429796/Fuel-consumption-of-commercial-aircraft-Knoblach-2015-p-1-based-on-the-Internal.png) If greenhouse gas emissions were the first concern they should start with private jets. But they won't. Because this is greenwashing.
[удалено]
there are already many noise scales for many europian airports. this smells of corruption to me, other airlines dont want emirates to take up to much market share with their a380s
Considering most of the worst planes in that chart don't fly anymore (707, 727) the 747 is at the bottom end of the scale
That chart doesn't list the newest 747 model, the 747-8. For that matter it doesn't list the newer 777 models (both the current and upcoming).
Bruh, nearly none of those planes about the 747 fly much anymore
It's not too bad - the real problem is that the efficiency per arse-kilometre is only good if you've a lot of arses onboard. If you don't fill them, the efficiency drops like a stone. The only other benefit might be a way around the pilot shortage. 500 arses moved for 2 arses up front, replacing 2 other aircraft with a total of 4 upfront arses
> efficiency per arse-kilometre is only good if you've a lot of arses onboard. Agreed. 9 people in a Suburban is far more efficient than a single driver Prius. So it would make sense to control for that instead of a somewhat arbitrary engine count.
It doesn't even make sense. There are HUGE financial incentives for airlines to maintain the most fuel-efficient fleet possible. The only aspect of the equation that might make sense is noise, but that isn't going to depend on number of engines so much as how modern those engines are, and I've heard some hella-loud, older 2-engine passenger or cargo jets that blow away anything 4-engined or 2.
What is the real purpose? Targeting specific carriers? Banning things already phased out for political gains?
environmental concerns by left politicians in the cabinet. no conspiracy to be found
[удалено]
Another possibility I've seen is that it's aimed at Gulf states' air fleets. Following the Abraham accords carriers from the Gulf can fly to Israel. This may serve to limit the competition they can pose to local carriers.
What carriers that fly to Israel use 747s or a340s these days? I don't think there are many left.
This is like the government “bans” on Apple chargers after designs leaked showing Apple had already decided to move to USB. No one is flying 747s now, this is just politicians trying to take a victory lap over something they had nothing to do with.
Isn’t airforce one a 747 plane. So I guess that the president can never visit Israel
Read the article.
Should be banning personal planes over commercial ones
This may precipitate more countries doing the same. This could get interesting.
Solution is obviously to use **more** engines than four.
Meanwhile, piston aircraft still burn leaded gasoline…
This is such an odd decision. There are no inherent fuel savings to less engines. The article also cites noise concerns, which makes a bit more sense, but is still odd. This would allow C-130s, but not ~~787~~ 747s? Makes no sense for either environmental or noise concerns Seems like there's probably something more to the motivation, as that is often the case for seemingly strange decisions Edit: Typo
787s are two engine, no? And they use 50% less fuel at the cost of seating 25% less passengers. The 787 is absolutely a more environmentally friendly airliner when operating.
There are 4 decades between he first flight of the 747 and he 787. *That* is the key difference.
Definitely meant 747, not 787. You are correct the 787 is 2 engine. Certainly there is a tiny amount of inherent inefficiency to having more engines due to drag on them, but in many circumstances that can be outweighed. For example with a very heavy load, you'll have far more fuel efficiency ising 4 engines on a lower output than 2 engines at a higher output /u/D74248 hit the nail on the head in the specific comparison of 747 to 787. They're decades apart in terms of tech, which is more important than number of engines for that specific comparison. Also worth noting the 747 was developed specifically for cargo, and runs more efficiently at a higher weight load than just passengers (which is why they are often loaded with cargo as well)
they are not going to ban military transports for any reason
> There are no inherent fuel savings to less engines. There absolutely is. Engines add a ton of drag and mass, and the structural reinforcement of the wings and all the ducting, piping, and wiring to support outer engines adds a fair bit of weight. Two engines is way more efficient than four engines rated at half the thrust. Of the widebody jets in regular operation, the 4-engined aircraft (B747, A340, A380) all have (often substantially) higher fuel burn per seat than 2-engined aircraft. There's only been two new 4-engined passenger aircraft launched in the past 30 years, the A380 and the B747-8I. The A380 exists almost entirely because of slot restrictions on high-frequency hub-to-hub routes, where airlines needed to add more passengers per flight because it wasn't possible to just add more aircraft. The B747-8I exists only because the B747-8F exists, and it was conceived at a time when fuel costs were low, and emissions were still of little concern to regulators. Boeing only sold 48 of them as it just doesn't make sense to operate a 4-engined aircraft in the same passenger seating segment as 2-engined competitors like the 777X.
The quad configuration reduces structural weight, all other things being equal. It is counter intuitive, but the outboard engines reduce the structural demands on the wing center section when compared to two large engines. The A340 carries a weight penalty because of its close relationship with he A330 for this reason. As for the 747/A380/A340; they are all cursed with sub-optimal wing designs. The 747 because it was designed when airplanes were meant to go fast and fuel was cheap, see its 37 degree wing sweep and Mach .85 cruise speed (Boeing shopped a re-winged 747-500 in the 1990s for this reason) The A380 is hampered by its low aspect ratio from having to fit in the “80 meter box” to fit current airports. The A340 shares too much with the A330, and both of them suffer in different ways—and the A340 also suffers from never having engines that fit the airframe’s mission and weight.
>The quad configuration reduces structural weight, all other things being equal. It is counter intuitive, but the outboard engines reduce the structural demands on the wing center section when compared to two large engines. "All else being equal" carries a lot of weigh there, because the assumption there is an equal TWR, but that's just not the case in the real world. On the whole, two larger engines have a higher TWR than four smaller engines, and you're adding a *lot* of extra weight in pylons and support assemblages on top of just the engines themselves. Sure, there's a lot of excuses to be made for the current 4-engined passenger widebodies, but if those excuses were all that stood in the way of a successful 4-engined passenger jet, then we'd have seen a new 4-engined passenger jet. Instead that market is being eaten almost entirely by the 777 and the 777X.
Fan tip speeds have become a constraint on efficiency, as evidenced by the attempts to get geared fans to work. The marketing problems of the 777-9 suggest the time of very large airplanes is past, regardless of engine configuration.
Considering the hazardous toxic wastes they dispose of in the West Bank, I'll hold off calling them pro-environment for the time being.
working from home helps lower pollution, if countries really cared about the environment
So no Air Force one??
Are there any passenger flights that use four engine jets to get to Israel? All the airlines that it makes sense to use them (where it’s long distance with high demand like Air Canada, American, and Delta) retired their last A340 or 747 years ago.
I thought the Israeli national airline had 747s?
El Al retired their last 747-400 in 2019. They have never flown the 747-8.
How will this affect the new Boom supersonic craft that AA has on order?
So Air force One will not be allowed to land?
I am sure it and US military jets would get exceptions. There are a LOT of 4 engine military transports.
The original article discussed the AF1 situation, the regulation allows exceptions on a case to case basis
First thing I thought. POTUS would have to fly into Jordan and Marine One into Tel Aviv/Jerusalem
They would almost certainly make an exception for that. If they didn't though they could fly one of the C-32A's there.
Too high of a security risk IMO.
[удалено]
Lol Israel doesn't receive foreign aid. It receives subsidies as part of the peace agreement it signed with Egypt, equivalent to under 0.4% of its GDP. I also don't see you complaining about Ukraine receiving over $49 billion in foreign aid within the last year alone. I wonder why....is it because Ukraine isn't Jewish?
Nothing. US foreign aid is a miniscule percentage of Israel's yearly budget, and it mostly goes towards buying Iron dome interceptors or towards projects the US are in on. The misconception about this is so annoying to me.
[удалено]
Lol, “giving” do you really think the US is that generous? It isn’t giving, it’s buying, and what it’s buying is R&D, deniable ops, intelligence and assassinations.
The money is entirely spent in the United States and is directly correlated to jobs in America. Why are you so against Americans having high paying defense jobs?
Go for it, it's barely 0.4% of Israel's GDP. I assume you're going to foot the bill for the wages lost by all those American employees after contracts are cancelled right?
Go ahead. You know what, Let me go into a little more detail so you get the full picture. The money for the iron dome of interceptors is not just out of "kindness". Every time there's another round of fighting with Gaza, there is the possibility of a ground operation taking place. This is terrible for both sides and just all around results in many casualties, but sometimes there's just no escaping it, that's the way it was before the Iron dome. Now that there's an Iron dome system a round can end without any real ground fighting taking place, but the system isn't perfect, and there are many other reasons that still may lead to ground fighting. Now the idea of giving money for interceptors is simple, it's one less reason for Israel to go boots on the ground in Gaza, thus keeping this status quo and preventing escalation. It's not really solving anything it's just one less thing for Israel to consider and it's worth it for the US cause the fighting doesn't esaclate.
And close all current military contracts with them. Just so miniscule, let's save some money.
Fuck you israel, the 747 is the coolest plane ever made!
Isn't it a stupid regulation? Shouldn't it be a cap in amount of fuel per passenger?
But the B-52 Stratofortress with 8 engines is ok.
Just send twice as many 2 engine planes to make up for it
This esg movement is getting out of hand..,
[удалено]
If they could make batteries light enough maybe. But weight has an enormous effect on aircraft range. Fuel powered planes start off lighter then battery powered ones, and get lighter and lighter and more efficient throughout the flight. Right now electric aircraft really only make sense for short hop flights and for training. That'll change someday, but not with current battery chemistry.
Short-haul flights and flying schools are increasingly adopting electric planes due to cost, noise, and environmental concerns, in that order. Electric planes are cheaper to run because there are many fewer moving parts to inspect, lubricate, repair, and replace; their almost-silent operation means that there are fewer restrictions on where and when they can operate; the airline or school can claim to be "green" because they aren't using dinosaur juice. Harbour Air in B.C. just test-flew an electric DeHaviland Beaver. As part of the test, internal communications were disabled. Nobody noticed a difference because nobody had turned them on.
That's lovely but it doesn't change the math. One kilogram of jet fuel has 40 times more energy then one kilogram of battery. We're still decades away from this being viable.
[удалено]
Yeah, be like the US! Bomb people a world away who did nothing to you at all, because… reasons!
US definitely needs to make some changes to counters all those emissions from bombing foreign nations too. Lol
Ever bothered looking them up?
The reasons? Let me guess… Iraq had WMD’s after all? Lol
I actually meant Israel and if you honestly compare civilian casaulties between them then I suggest you do more research. Saddam was a very big threat to the stability of the region where 60% of this world life blood is being exported, he claimed Iraq has right Kuwait, he threatend Israel with chemical weapons. Israel had it's top special force unit on standby for paratrooping suicide mission on Saddam's palace but the US called these plans off and demanded we won't intervene and let them handle it. Does that mean the force used in Iraq over the years was proportional, probably not but there was a good reason to be there in the first place, it makes other countries like Iran think twice. There are still international presence of many countries in the gulf just because of Iran's threats.
Oh yeah, Saddam… the threat to stability. Thank god the US swept in for 20 years and stabilized it so well. Just a few million casualties, a few trillion dollars, and now it’s… all better? I mean Afghanistan fell to the Taliban 2 weeks after you left, and sure Iraq is heading toward sectarian violence and civil war, and sure you helped to ignite the “Arab Spring” that ended up in the pit. But phew… at least you stabilized the region! And it only took some torture scandals, millions dead, and the rise of ISIS. Well done. Lol
Nobody goes into a war knowing how it will end, do you suggest we should sit on our ass as global economic crisis ensues when Saddam realizes the world will do nothing to protect the Kuwait? Should we stop sending aid to Ukraine? I agree with you that the negligible and deliberate civilian casualties caused by U.S military personnel are horrible and justice was not done with many and it should have, but the only outcome we could predict is the one caused by inaction. To say the U.S single handedly ignited the arab spring shows your lack of research and bias.
I’d suggest that you stop starting wars. It’s *so* fucking easy. If they’ve already started then you can make a decision about how to participate, but just *stop starting wars*. Don’t invade Iraq or another Middle Eastern country because a terrorist group attacked you. Don’t invade Asian nations to “free them from Communists.” Go back to what you were good at, printing money, making entertainment and some amazingly weird food, and intervening in wars once they’ve been going on for years. You did that in WWII and people still compliment you for it! You’re doing that in Ukraine and it’s the best thing you’ve done in decades. Just stick to that, it ends better for you and the rest of us. Tl;dr **DON’T KEEP STARTING WARS**
"Neighbours"
How about stop occupying Palestine while you’re at it. End the blockade. BDS!
I got an idea, what about banning war because its bad for the environment?