Originally Posted by
tdracer
It won't be the engines - Cargolux has a large fleet of RB211 powered 747-400F. In fact, about 15 years ago Cargolux wanted to buy another six 747-400Fs with Rolls engines, but Rolls had shut down the RB211 line and wasn't interested in starting it up for another 24 engines (Cargolux instead got PW4000s).
Rather, I think the BA 747s are unlikely to become freighters simply because they are already very high time - most already over 100,000 hours. Heck, IIRC, that BA 747-400 that knocked down a building in Joberg was around 108,000 hours - and that was several years ago.
tdracer, you are referring to Cathay Pacific not Cargolux. The six aircraft were in fact -400ERFs which are all still operated by Cathay today and are powered By PW4062A.
At the time CX had already purchased a half dozen -400 and -400BCF from SQ powered by PW4056 engines.
Do you happen to know if RR ever considered a higher thrust rating than their existing high thrust ~60k Lbs “H” rating RB211-525H-T-19 to power the -400ERF?
The CF6-80C2B5F and PW4062A (only -400ER/F engines delivered) produce ~62k Lbs static thrust.
On the -400 only Cargolux operates the RB211 at the higher “H” rating. BA did for a number of years and SA did as well due to the elevation at their home base.