
Posted:
Fri May 29, 2009 12:33 pm
by cowpatz
A real shame to see a fully serviceable aircraft meet this sort of demise. My arse has spent many hours in the front of this aircraft and together we have witnessed many a sunrise. The 747 is without a doubt the finest commercial aircraft ever to fly. The 777 replacing it will have it's work cutout to match it's older siblings track record.

Posted:
Fri May 29, 2009 1:52 pm
by Ian Warren
Recent 40 Anniversary of the first 747 flight , this NBS nears the 20 , with the 800 series incoming shorty so that would be another twenty years .
Cowpatz .. " My arse has spent many hours in the front of this aircraft and together we have witnessed many a sunrise." ..... how could ya see a sunrise , bloody great nosecone ..hahah

unless .. you were driving !
Quote '
The 747 is without a doubt the finest commercial aircraft ever to fly. '

Posted:
Fri May 29, 2009 2:28 pm
by Naki
I think Cowapatz is a jumbo driver


Posted:
Fri May 29, 2009 4:17 pm
by NZ255
Naki wrote:I think Cowapatz is a jumbo driver

Yup, ANZ 747 FO

Posted:
Fri May 29, 2009 7:47 pm
by Ex ANZ Eng
Tis a shame, I joined ANZ in 1990, in my 14 years there, tested all the engines more than once, went out and did fan trims on wing.........however, RR engines are a @#$%ard to fan trim on wing compared to the 5 747-400's that are GE powered.........
747's are still the queen of the sky's.........


Posted:
Sat May 30, 2009 7:43 am
by creator2003
That plane has a bit of history so why not keep it and turn it into a koro lounge or a hotel ,seems a big hassle to move it else where and would be good for business ..

Posted:
Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:25 pm
by AlisterC
You know, I flew on NZ2 to Los Angeles last friday night, a 747 flight, and I could barely see a spare seat in the economy section, so I don't see where the loss of demand is (perhaps it's their mid week flights that aren't full). Either way, I still had a great flight with Air NZ, the crew were great, and the flight silky smooth.
It's always a shame to see a 747 go to the wrecker. Wish I had the cash to buy the cockpit haha What a great home cockpit it would be.

Posted:
Fri Jun 05, 2009 6:44 pm
by ardypilot
Word is, NBS left for the states about an hour ago.

Posted:
Fri Jun 05, 2009 7:40 pm
by Njbb1995
Sad to see one go,,
had a good life tho,,
sending people here to there,,
here to there? No! everywhere!!
Bye Bye NBS

Posted:
Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:14 pm
by Ian Warren
Trolly wrote:Word is, NBS left for the states about an hour ago.
under its own power .. or schimmy'd in ta a crate

Posted:
Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:32 pm
by greaneyr
Ian Warren wrote:under its own power .. or schimmy'd in ta a crate
Rumour has it they towed her

The trend may be leaning toward twin widebodies, but the 74 should NEVER be played down for what it did so long ago.

Posted:
Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:41 pm
by Ian Warren
greaneyr wrote:Rumour has it they towed her

The trend may be leaning toward twin widebodies, but the 74 should NEVER be played down for what it did so long ago.
Its design , it will be back , those last 40 years .. ArrrrrrrBussssss can never match , they have the concept .. finally , realistic ..the 747 will still be the Queen of the Sky , the leader!

Posted:
Sun Jun 07, 2009 4:51 pm
by ardypilot
From the
MRC blog:
Air New Zealand's first Boeing 747-419, ZK-NBS (24386), is on its way to Roswell, New Mexico, this evening to be broken up for spares. As ANZ6390, the -400 lifted off Auckland's runway 23L at 1903 and made a right turn on track to its first stop, Los Angeles, where the flight will clear formalities before making the final flight to Roswell.
ZK-NBS was delivered to Auckland brand new on 16 December 1989 however due to industrial problems the aircraft was dry leased to Cathay Pacific and delivered to Hong Kong the following day. It commenced services with Cathay Pacific on 22 December on the Hong Kong-Bangkok-Singapore route and did not return to Air NZ's fleet until 11 February 1991 by which time the second -400, ZK-NBT, had arrived on 2 November 1990 and this aircraft was actually the first 400 series to operate Air NZ services. While with Cathay Pacific it wore their livery as seen here : http://www.airliners.net/photo/Cathay-Paci...-419/0915886/L/
ZK-NBS, powered by Rolls Royce RB211-524G engines, it was the test aircraft flown with one engine operating on 50/50 bio-fuel in late December 2008.
As at its final revenue flight, back on 07Jan09 as ANZ124 from Melbourne to Auckland, the Jumbo had accumulated 88306 flight hours and made 11488 landings. A test flight was carried out on 29May09 from/to Auckland of just under an hour's duration to check all systems following the aircraft's storage where all engines had been removed and its interior gutted while its future was pondered.
ZK-NBS flew on all the scheduled 747-400 routes however in the latter part of its career was kept off the Hong Kong-Heathrow route due to its oxygen system not being modified to the required standards. Possibly one of its most 'exotic' or unusual ports of call was a trip to Oshkosh, Wisconsin, in July 1998 where the aircraft, after deplaning its passengers, carried out a flypast before positioning to Los Angeles.
ZK-NBS wore two names while with Air NZ, firstly "Mataatua" (the name of the canoe claimed as bringing ancestors from Hawaiki to Northland) in the 1990's and then during the early part of this decade a decal featuring the name "Bay of Islands" and a picture of the region's famous landmark, The Hole in the Rock, was placed on the forward fuselage.

Posted:
Sun Jun 07, 2009 6:49 pm
by Chairman
Trolly wrote:ZK-NBS flew on all the scheduled 747-400 routes however in the latter part of its career was kept off the Hong Kong-Heathrow route due to its oxygen system not being modified to the required standards.
That's an intriguing comment - what would need modifying ?
Cheers
Gary

Posted:
Sun Jun 07, 2009 6:52 pm
by pilot.masman

why do they have to wreck it. i want to talk to them

it will cost them a fair ammount to wreck it but if they paid me just $100 then ill take it off their hands and put it in my back yard

Posted:
Sun Jun 07, 2009 7:33 pm
by Njbb1995
Id Pay them 100 bux to let me have it. How about we go halves?

Posted:
Sun Jun 07, 2009 8:38 pm
by pilot.masman
bags the front half


Posted:
Sun Jun 07, 2009 8:55 pm
by LMerraine
I remember watching a program on Foxtel that stripped down a a 747<400 (can't remember the model).
They basically stripped it bare, removed everything that could be sold, and then shredded the rest of it, almost brought me to tears. Apart from the bae 146, the 747 is my favourite plane.
Sigh, rest well NBS, you have been to places we could only wish to spend time in for 20 years of our life.

Posted:
Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:56 pm
by victor_alpha_charlie
pilot.masman wrote:
why do they have to wreck it. i want to talk to them

it will cost them a fair ammount to wreck it but if they paid me just $100 then ill take it off their hands and put it in my back yard
Why would it cost them to wreck it? Onselling all the parts would make it quite a profitable business. People don't recycle hundreds of planes a year just for the fun of it..