747 Freighter: longer lifespan?

[Will]

Probably this is common knowledge, so please forgive me if it's a basic question.

I heard that the 747 will live on as a freighter for long after it has stopped carrying passengers. My question is about the economics of this. Why wouldn't cargo companies make more money by using fuel efficient twins? It looks like the 747-8F can carry 69,000 lbs more payload than the 777F, so I'm going to guess that the revenue from the additional cargo makes more money than would be saved on fuel using a twin.

But another factor may be the front loading option? Are there any freight operations that require the open-nose loading style? Can you get larger pallets into the aircraft that way, compared to moving cargo through a side door?

Thanks for humoring me.

[Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers]

Other effects...

Cargo does not ask for the latest and greatest in inflight entertainment and lay-flat seats. You can fly considerably older planes with cargo without significant updates.

Older planes have usually been paid off. It is less expensive to let them not fly 100% of the time, or to have them burn a bit more fuel. This is also why cargo planes can be left overday at an airport and only fly at night.

Load in terms of mass is not the same as in terms of volume. The 747 still is queen by volume.


Hoppie

[Ton van Bochove]

But another factor may be the front loading option? Are there any freight operations that require the open-nose loading style? Can you get larger pallets into the aircraft that way, compared to moving cargo through a side door?

For this kind of freight the 744F is ( beside the AN124) the only option. It happens quite a lot that an oil rig part should be transported

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/vtLiIgFKXvY/maxresdefault.jpg

[DougSnow]

A freighter 747 doesnt have to deal with the faff of ETOPS

A freighter 777 does.

[John H Watson]

Are there any freight operations that require the open-nose loading style?

I've seen what looked like yacht masts loaded in through the nose. These required two "FMC" cargo loaders end to end.

There is probably military hardware which won't fit in through the side door.

[IefCooreman]

How they explained it to me when flying both for the same operator:

The B747 is interesting for 2 cases:

1) Volume. It provides much more volume capability and hence becomes interesting if you are able to fill it up completely. A B777 is loading wise also a little more restrictive/less flexible with the cockpit up front.

2) Flexibility. The B747 has the front nose capability which gives much more flexibility as to what you want to transport. Which is why it remains so important in ACMI situations, where the operator always wants to say "yes we can transport your stuff".

The B777 works for "network" systems with fixed flight schedules where there is always some kind of "reserve" on payload capability. Aircraft like B777F and A330F have found their way to big network operators (Fedex, DHL), but not so in ACMI.

I believe the B748F is still fairly expensive to lease, but especially in an ACMI environment, the B744 still allows to keep the customer satisfied. That is until the fuel prices start to rise again I guess... B777 was very fuel efficient (20% less fuel on Europe-China connections), but initially also very expensive to lease for smaller operators, but prices have dropped.

Anyway, just "hearsay" in casual conversations with people.

[Will]

Thanks everyone, this is interesting. I especially like the photo of the drilling equipment.

[United744]

There is also the "conversion factor".

747 passenger can be (relatively) easily converted to a freighter when its passenger days are over, but the 777, and even more so the A330, are harder to convert to freighters.

The A380 was impossible to convert, and despite the age of the airframe, the first MD-83s have just begun being converted to freighters.

Jet2 in the UK operate all 737 Combis - they fly pax during the day, then in the evening they take out all the seats and fly cargo overnight. Early morning, put the seats back, and fly passengers. Takes about 90 minutes each time to get it ready.

The cost of converting passenger to freighter can be quite steep. The cut-off seems to be the 777. Few A330s have been converted so far, with Airbus marketing a specific A330 freighter instead.

https://www.flightglobal.com/converted-md-80-lifts-off-on-maiden-flight/107308.article

[Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers]

What is the main blocking factor to stop a freighter conversion? The possibility to make a large enough cutout for a standard container maybe?


Hoppie

[Jeroen D]

These guys specialise in passenger to freighter conversions.
Interesting little video.

https://www.iai.co.il/p/b747-400bdsf

[andrej]

Hoppie,

I would say that it available fleet size must be sufficient (that is why B744 and B77W are a great candidate for P2F conversion, but not B764 for example). It must be able to have a good characteristics for a freight operators (again B77W and B744 posses them). And it should not be a complicated design (i.e. structure should be able to handle such conversion).

Best!

[United744]

Cost, I'd imagine.

Is it worth converting even one aircraft, or does it only become cost-effective at five or ten airframes?

Interesting they deactivate the stab tank. Any ideas why that might be?

[andrej]

Interesting they deactivate the stab tank. Any ideas why that might be?

I noticed that most (all?) -400F variants do not have STAB tank. I was told that it is more profitable to carry cargo / freight, rather than fuel. Even -400FERs do not have STAB tanks (or AUX) installed.

Best!

[G-CIVA]

Interesting they deactivate the stab tank. Any ideas why that might be?

The 400F is built without the STAB Tank option. Deactivating it will standardise the BCF/BDSF to a broadly similar planning figure to 400F fuel/range/payload calculations.

Its worth an extra 10t of cargo.

The STAB Tank was designed to give the 400 PAX the ultra long range capability to haul a full payload from the Far East to Europe under standard headwind conditions & from Asia/Australasia to the US, & Australasia to South America (& return) under the same conditions.

Freighters seldom require the ultra long haul capability; but require maximum payload lift capability. Thus the full ultra long range fuel capability of the STAB Tank is not required.

The AUX Tanks were only ever fitted to the 400ER aircraft delivered to Qantas (the only customer to take passenger ER options). This enabled the opening up of direct routes to Dallas, although at times the payload at that range versus the fuel load became critical & the aircraft at times required a tech stop en-route for fuel.  Passenger baggage was often offloaded to get the aircraft down to the MTOW dependent on the required fuel for the trip on the day.

The AUX Tanks were fitted into the FWD Cargo Hold & reduced the capacity & weight of baggage & freight that could be carried. They would not provided a commercial advantage on a 400ERF as described above.