Boeing...? - Airport (1970) Discussion

[–] robertcampopiano 16 years ago

Doubtful. This was the days before product placement. The Boeing 707 was the workhorse plane of the airlines back then. The 747 had just entered service when this movie premiered. We flew on one of the first Pan Am 747's when we came home from Europe in July, 1970.

reply

[–] CineramaMama 14 years ago

Maybe a bit of national pride, as we were still engaged in a cold war (and a real war) and America's reputation was starting to get rather beat-up on the world stage. Also, the British and French manufacturers were gaining ground with the Concord, et. al..

reply

[–] franzkabuki 13 years ago

"The British and French manufacturers were gaining ground with the Concorde".

Concorde didn´t enter service until mid-seventies and there were a few good years till Airbus´s debut as well.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

[–] bgoleary-1 13 years ago

the British and French manufacturers were gaining ground with the Concord, et. al..

No they weren't. In 1970 Concorde still hadn't gone into service and Airbus hadn't been formed. As for the Concorde, only 16 were ever produced and 2 of them went into museums. The 14 that actually saw service were split evenly between Air France and BOAC (part of British Airways from 1974 on).

Most of the European airlines were flying 707s and most of those that weren't were flying DC-8s.

reply

[–] rockmail 13 years ago

Wrong. There was product placement in movies starting at least in the 40's. It wasn't always as painfully obvious as now, but it occurred here and there. In fact, in "Love Happy (1947) there washed so many billboards/ads toward the end, the studio nearly cancelled the release of the movie.

reply

[–] paulkaliciak 13 years ago

It's called "not wanting to be sued" :-)

reply

[–] leetallahassee 12 years ago

Call it "product placement" if you want, but in this case it was true.
Acoording to most sources I have seen, public opinion and airline personnel
opinion has agreed that over the years the Boeing 707 was one of (if not THE)
best airplane ever built. Joe Petroni's lines were not fiction, they were
fact.

I know several ex-airline personnel and none of them ever had a bad thing to say
about the Boeing 707.

reply

[–] jjuergen 12 years ago

Sure...just imagine had they used a Tupolev Tu-114. That thing would have crashed!!!

I know where I've been shot, dammit, I'm a doctor!

reply

[–] nutsberryfarm 10 years ago

or a bombardier! 

🌴🌴🌴🌴🌴🌴🌴🌴🌴

reply

[–] al-woods 12 years ago

Hi,
Having worked on the 707, 747 and 767 for a number of years, I agree with your comments wholeheartedly. Take a look at the current 737, the fuselage design is essentially that of a 707 as was the 727. It was a grand old bird, designed and built at a wonderful time in history. John Travolta's is magnificent!

reply

[–] amolad-1 12 years ago

This film seems to be sucking up to the entire airline and travel industry. Everything about air travel was great, the plane can survive anything ("built like a tank" says Patroni), and the stewardesses are pretty and loose.
The whole "pregnant out of wedlock because of extramarital affair" and abortion talk is shocking for the time ESPECIALLY since this movie was rated G.
I'm sure it was Condemned by the Catholic Church for even talking about such a thing in '69-'70.
In 1970 air travel was finally taking off as most people in America hadn't ever been on a plane and the price of tickets was becoming more affordable for all. This film was showing that air travel was hip and cool and groovy.

reply

[–] rorysa 12 years ago

Everything about air travel was great? A mental case detonates a bomb on a plane, injuring many and endangering all their lives--doesn't seem so great to me.

reply

[–] DingelBerry 12 years ago

Funny thing is that Burt Lancaster had a model of the Concorde on his desk at his office! !

:)

reply

[–] hobnob53 12 years ago

Airport was pro-aviation industry the way Dragnet was pro-police: everyone from the aircraft designers, engineers and manufacturers to the airline ground personnel, air crews and front office were all quick-thinking, decisive, smart guys who knew everything and foresaw everything. This was typical of many Hollywood imaginings of major industries or organizations, and it's the kind of depiction audiences loved to see...and probably believed.

The poster somewhere above who said most people hadn't flown at the time this movie was released doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. This was 1970, not 1940. Most Americans had flown by then, flying was common, and it was still relatively cheap and service-oriented, nothing like the crowded, hectic, security-heavy and unpleasant experience it has become...not to mention very expensive. But he's right that the film was in effect an advertisement for the airlines. They may have deserved it then. Not now.

reply

[–] Tobey 11 years ago

I think you are incorrect saying that most Americans had flown when this movie came out. Even considering those that flew while in the service I would guess that less than half had been in a plane. I was born in 1965 and counting my family of about 40, including aunts, uncles and cousins, I had one uncle that flew occasionally, and he worked for Eastern.

Flying was fairly expensive for most of Americans. It was after airline deregulation in the 80's that most people could afford to fly. I also have to laugh when people talk about how expensive it is to fly. In '86 I flew from Nebraska to California for $200 when Continental was running a sale. In 2013 I flew Southwest for about $250 for the same trip. Yes, the seats were smaller and there was no food service but I don't think $50 more after 27 years is too bad.

reply

[–] txfilmfan 10 years ago

Agree. Until deregulation, the US Government regulated where airlines could fly, and how much they could charge, as long as the airline's operations crossed a state line. Service was generally excellent, but fares were pricey by comparison.

By the way, the reason Southwest rose to prominence was that they were an intrastate airline during the regulated era, flying only between Dallas, Houston and San Antonio, where they could set their own routes and fares, and giving them several years of experience of learning how to juggle the marketplace and figuring out what people were willing to pay, and what type of services they really wanted. After deregulation, they just kept building on that model.

reply

[–] joystar5879 10 years ago

I was born in 1953, and barring a flight from Chicago to Newark at the age of 6 months...(I still have the pair of tiny wings that were clipped to my blanket). I didn't fly again until the age of 23. Then, it was Newark to Los Angeles, and then a shuttle flight from LA to San Diego.

I don't know how it is now, but when I was flying, the best National Carrier was PAN-AM and the best Foreign Carrier was British Airways.

I do hope he won't upset Henry...

reply

[–] muckydog2 10 years ago

I think its a model of the Boeing SST that was cancelled due to technical, cost and fuel pricing issues. It was being developed alongside the 747. They were trying to make a mach 2.5 - 3 aircraft, which meant aluminium was not suitable and demanded titanium which would withstand the high temperatures. There were engine issues and a host of other difficult problems. Concorde at mach 2 could be made of aluminium and was a much more realistic prospect. The 747 was meant to be the secondary ''dull'' design, yet caught the imagination of the world when released.
On another note..
Airplane the movie was based on this and Zero Hour both written by Arthur Hailey.

reply

[–] txfilmfan 10 years ago

Boeing stopped work on this project because Congress stopped the federal funding for the project. It was a federal contract, not a speculative project looking for customers. The cancellation of the SST along with the loss of a couple of other contracts, and the winding down of the Apollo era caused a loss of some 60K Boeing jobs in the early 1970s

reply

[–] eelb 10 years ago

The main thing that killed the U.S. SST programs, was the environmental movement, and then the first energy crisis in 1973. The latter also suspended further production of Concorde.

It was common thought in the 1960's, that the SST was the next big thing, and they would be as numerous as the first generation jets had become.

reply

[–] gheilers 9 years ago

Funny thing is that Burt Lancaster had a model of the Concorde on his desk at his office! !

Actually, that was a model of the proposed (and eventually cancelled) Boeing Model 2707 SST. See link below - scroll down about two-thirds of the page.

http://impdb.org/index.php?title=Airport

reply

[–] eelb 10 years ago

I'm sure it was Condemned by the Catholic Church for even talking about such a thing in '69-'70.

I assure you, for the timeframe, this was one of the least controversial films coming out of Hollywood.

reply