My cousins got this, when we were kids. I was never hugely into air travel (I was more of a train kid, which my Lego collection reflects), but I was still pretty jealous, 'cause this was a cool plane.

The Based Air Carrier didn't really take off.

How many people have searched for this set number only to say "That's not the Exxon Gas Station!"?

Looks a bit like the LEGO equivalent of an Antonow An-124 to me.

In any case, a classic four-wide plane and one I unfortunately failed to get back in the day.

@madforLEGO said:
"How many people have searched for this set number only to say "That's not the Exxon Gas Station!"?"

And conversely I was well into adulthood before I found out there had been an earlier set also numbered 6375. Its only thanks to the Internet, etc.

To someone living in the British Isles, discovering that there were sets unavailable in Europe came as a surprise. But it did partly explain why an Exxon minifigure turned up in one of the Ideas Books ( 7777 I think).

EDIT. No, it was 200-2 from 1985 about which I was thinking, front cover along with a chap wearing a yellow hard hat on the back cover, and I had no idea which set he came from either.

Had this set as a kid and I loved it. Bought it a while back again together with the international jetport 6396.

This was a nice variation from regular underbody wing planes. I was awed by four engines. Unheard of at the time. I still perefer this design ( or slightly modernized version).

Love it!
It's one of those sets where everything is just right, you know.
I've still got the turbine parts of those engines in a large (+-50cm) Concorde I built way back.
Fond memories!

Just out of shot is a police officer waiting to say, 'Would you mind blowing into this sir?'

Pretty nice plane. It must be pretty strong with that quartet of engines! The wings being so high up also helps to make it feel like its 'shoulders' are hunched trying to carry a heavy load.

Today's planes are nice and for the actual interior it is now nicer to have more width. The fuselage is as wide as the cars of the era! But there's something special about this era's planes. Even though they inevitably all have the same nose parts. At least it's not one part (plus insert windscreen) like now.

@Mr_Hankey: Ah, 6396, which had another classic four-wide plane. Although even as a kid, I was thinking, "Shouldn't an airliner carry more than three passengers?" Still had lots of fun with that set, though.

I like the minifig torso on the forklift driver - what looks like a LEGO Concorde - my favourite plane!

Nice plane. No wonder the Bricklink price is so high!

The forklift driver is kept busy running between the forklift and truck which can only move one postbox at a time! Could probably rebuild the plane from bricklink as all the parts are easily available. Although the discontinued white engines 4868a likely to be expensive, and the tailfin with the parcel logo (part 4867pb04) is unique to this set. So may have to compromise with a different 4867 logo.

Love this set. Have acquired a couple in hauls, though I think only one forklift. These old 4-wide sets really are peak Lego for me.

I remember this set; found it semi-complete but still in its original box in a charity shop just on the cusp of entering my 'dark age', over a decade ago now. As I was losing interest in Lego at the time, and had never really been a Classic Town guy anyway, my interest in it was limited; but it also seemed like too good a deal to pass up? So my mum bought it to give to the kids of a family who we were friends with, who didn't have a lot of Lego. Since it didn't have all the pieces (or the instructions), I used the box art to make something as close the original build as I could with only the included pieces, and photographed my own set of instructions for the results I managed, so that they had a starting point for what to build with it. Did the same with several of the alternate builds on the back of the box, too.

I actually kept the original box myself despite giving them the content, since I figured they'd just throw it away and that seemed like a waste of some good old classic-nineties box art. Eventually sold the box on Bricklink to someone who wanted it, so I'm glad it didn't go to waste ^^

why did it change genders

Trans literally just means "across" in Latin.

One of the many sets that scream city awesomeness of the 80's and 90's. One more company to the city in a time that you didn't get police over police over police almost monthly... All the set was greatly designed with the right amount of sidekicks. I'd substitute the small car with a 4 wide truck or trailer like 6692. Highly recommend it if you like classics, build it with instructions on peeron.

It's the second set I own the most of: three of them for triple the nostalgia

@Norikins said:
"Trans literally just means "across" in Latin."

Useless little (and completely unrelated) fact: A few years ago I've been in Transnistria, an unrecognized breakaway part of Moldova, separated by the river Dniester. However, Transnistria is only how everyone outside of that bit of land call it. People within the "country" call it Pridnestrovie...and guess what that means? It's all a matter of perspective :-)

No aircraft could ever take off with a pitch and tilt like that. The image on the box actually depicts the fateful last moments of the flight before impact, with the crew member in the forklift being an unfortunate ground casualty. All that was ever recovered of him was an arm, which landed on one of the tables of the hamburger stand of 6399.

@TheOtherMike:
The plane from the Amelia Earhart set is a passenger plane. It’s to scale with the minifig…by _height_. The real plane seated six passengers, plus the pilot. If you want to travel to the more rural parts in northern Alaska, you’ll probably end on a commuter plane that seats even fewer than six. Three passengers plus the pilot does start to feel like someone tipped a helicopter sideways and slapped some wings on it, though.

@iamkevinwill:
Of all the passenger jets, I believe the Concorde still holds two opposing records. One is least total accidents, with one. The other is highest percentage of accidents based on the total number of flights (just because the thing made one round trip per day). Ironically, the 737-800 Max (the plane that was afraid of staying in the air) had a better safety record by percentage when the entire international fleet was grounded following _two_ catastrophic accidents.

@CopperTablet:
I’m pretty sure they’re just trying to snag the daily mail with a hook, like they used to do on trains if they had no other reason to stop at that station. That doesn’t necessarily mean the forklift driver gets off easy, since this is a new process they’re trialing. There’s still a good chance he gets wanged on the head because the pilot lowered the landing gear instead of the cargo hook.

7734 was a better plane model, but 7734 will always have my heart. I got it from the Shop At Home catalog after it had been discontinued in the US. Those were the days, when they sold all sorts of discontinued sets via Shop At Home.

@AllenSmith:
You listed the same set twice in what seems an either/or comparison. New article goes up in about 40 minutes!