View Full Version : Another US B-747 Freighter Fleet Gone
Delta to Ground 14 Freighters
JOC Staff | Apr 21, 2009 5:13PM GMT
The Journal of Commerce Online - News Story
Former Northwest 747 fleet falls victim to rising costs, falling Asia trade
Delta Air Lines will ground its entire fleet of 14 747 freighters as it addresses big losses and a steep decline in cargo business, the airline said Tuesday.
The aircraft, long operated by Northwest Airlines before Northwest merged with Delta late last year, had been a backbone of trans-Pacific shipping and the last substantial freighter operation mounted by any American passenger airline.
Delta said in a report on the first quarter that included a $794 million net loss that it will ground the freighters “due to the fleet’s age and inefficiency.”
The 747-200s had made Northwest the United States’ largest freight carrier among passenger airlines for years, but Delta said in its first quarter report that cargo revenue declined 44 percent from the same quarter a year ago. Delta and Northwest combined counted $331 million in cargo revenue in the first quarter of 2008 and just $185 million this year.
The 747-200s are markedly less fuel efficient and more costly to operate than the newer 747-400s that fill Pacific trade lanes, but Northwest had put off decisions on whether to modernize or scale back the fleet for several years because it was picking up business to and from Asia.
With Asia exports retreating sharply over the past year, however, the diminished demand threw the aircraft into a far harsher operating light.
Cargo traffic at Northwest reported to the U.S. Department of Transportation this year was down 48 percent on Pacific lanes, the heart of the freighter operation.
Delta did not give a timetable for when it will pull the freighters from service.
Sleeping Freight Dog
23rd Apr 2009, 17:59
According to a lengthy thread on another forum, the freighters will be
gone as of Dec 31, 2009. This is really not a big surprise as they had already announced the ANC pilot base would be closed and that the B742s would not
be transferred over to the new Single operating certificate.
nitty-gritty
25th Apr 2009, 06:42
Is this due to the loss of the NW contract with DHL to Polar?
Best Angle
25th Apr 2009, 15:48
According to NWA crews, it was Delta's decision not to convert any -400s (even though I believe that was NWA's original plan when retiring the -200's) and get out of the freighter business. Too much investment for the short term return and the huge drop in NRT cargo.
Flying Mechanic
25th Apr 2009, 16:00
thats a shame those old 200's be plying the asian skies for over 20 years, sure they will head to the desert, let hope they get a second life in the next boom!
muduckace
26th Apr 2009, 17:02
Anyone know what type of motors are on those -200's. If they are CF6-50's they are likely to get picked up by some operator.
Yobbo
26th Apr 2009, 17:53
7Q Pratts I believe
muduckace
26th Apr 2009, 20:33
The "q" was a great motor but I am pretty sure it sucked more fuel than the GE, reliable powerfull motor though.
The Boeing website shows -200's with -7r4's. I have never seen a -200 with a -7r4, only Q's and JT9D-70's (rare).
Best Angle
26th Apr 2009, 20:57
The NWA freighters have -7R Pratts. Very much like a "Q"
Yobbo
26th Apr 2009, 23:18
I always thought the 7R4G2 was used on the 300. It is indeed a great engine.
Lowrider2
27th Apr 2009, 00:19
Southern Air Transport operated one 7R powered 200 and it had more power than the Qs that they had. Both great engines, but the leasing costs are higher than the GE.
Sleeping Freight Dog
27th Apr 2009, 02:06
NW bought an ex-Swissair B743 just to put the engines on its Freighters,
it may actually have been 2 aircraft. Thats why they have the 7R4G2s on some of the aircraft.
Regarding 747-200 freighters, even FedEx long ago discarded theirs, after they purchased FlyingTiger.
It is not surprising that Delta wants to rid themselves of these older airplanes.
Will they be used again?
Doubtful, in my opinion, as the freight market will take quite sometime to recover and....the 747-200 is simply too large for many markets.
747-400 freighter?
These will be in much greater demand on the freight upturn, but even these will be eclipsed eventually by the 777F.
You simply cannot disregard twin engine economics (versus 4-engine) in the longer term.
SNS3Guppy
27th Apr 2009, 05:54
I have never seen a -200 with a -7r4, only Q's and JT9D-70's (rare).
We operated one -200 with an R motor.
Fr8Dog
27th Apr 2009, 13:32
"Regarding 747-200 freighters, even FedEx long ago discarded theirs, after they purchased FlyingTiger.
It is not surprising that Delta wants to rid themselves of these older airplanes.
Will they be used again?
Doubtful, in my opinion, as the freight market will take quite sometime to recover and....the 747-200 is simply too large for many markets.
747-400 freighter?
These will be in much greater demand on the freight upturn, but even these will be eclipsed eventually by the 777F.
You simply cannot disregard twin engine economics (versus 4-engine) in the longer term".
411A,
You might want to call and let the marketing people at Boeing in on your obvious keen insight. I am sure they will re-think the -8 program after your conversation. You show me on paper how you are going to haul 120 tonnes of freight across the pond in a 777F. Can't do it! :ugh:
Other than niche market requirements for nose loaders (such as Atlas), industry trend seems to be moving the other way . . Pax carriers, FedEx, Luffty (Lufthansa Cargo), and others don't agree . . . not even a super big 747f (the scarebus 380f) had found significant demand.
I applaud the 747-8, but also expect that they will prove to be the last of the "two engine on one wing" aviation era. . . . . for profitable quirky economic long haul, expect for the 777f to eventually kick pants.
As for a soon to be freight market recovery. . . . . Other than the progressing population bomb, and with nothing to reverse today's job loss, what magic potion out there will break such a spell?
zerozero
27th Apr 2009, 18:34
As for a soon to be freight market recovery. . . . . Other than the progressing population bomb, and with nothing to reverse today's job loss, what magic potion out there will break such a spell?
More war.
It's a big business you know.
And those C-5s seem to be used quite sparingly these days.
Govt contracts are easy money.
Welcome to the new economy where we don't produce anything--we just blow it up.
:hmm:
TimeOnTarget
27th Apr 2009, 20:18
I vote that we go to war with Venezuela!!
I don't actually want to blow anything up down there, just occupy the place for a while.
The pros;
It is close to home.
Spanish is easy to learn.
The girls are really hot.
The weather is nice.
We would keep our tax dollars in the Western hemisphere.
Great food and beer.
Tank2Engine
27th Apr 2009, 21:58
Why do Americans never invest in the future by staying up to date fleet wise?
The number of old, fuel guzzling clunkers seen at US airports (both on the freight and pax apron) never seizes to amaze me.
400drvr
27th Apr 2009, 23:23
We are to worried about the next quarter and raiding the employee retirement plans. I thought everyone knew this.
:sad:
free at last
28th Apr 2009, 02:11
No one cared about Pan Am, Braniff, Eastern, now u know , no nothing when you spend 20-30 up to 40 years in the USA, you will retire with nothing!!! Let's all spend time to rebuild this industry so that our future generation will have a quality of retirement. BEST OF LUCK TO ALL:)
Other than niche market requirements for nose loaders (such as Atlas), industry trend seems to be moving the other way . . Pax carriers, FedEx, Luffty (Lufthansa Cargo), and others don't agree . . . not even a super big 747f (the scarebus 380f) had found significant demand.
I applaud the 747-8, but also expect that they will prove to be the last of the "two engine on one wing" aviation era. . . . . for profitable quirky economic long haul, expect for the 777f to eventually kick pants.
Yup, you know the score.
Even in the pax market, two engines is the way to go, for new airplanes.
Even as far back as 1980, when the (then) DFO at SQ, Capt SK (Charlie) Chan and I had adult beverages over a couple of Havanas, this was discussed..and we both came to the obvious...two engines rule.
Took awhile, but you can now see the writing on the wall...clearly.
Especially important in the freight market...
for profitable quirky economic long haul, expect for the 777f to eventually kick pants.
Gotta happen.:ok:
Can a 777F carry it's own engine (internally, without dismantling the whole thing)? Sorry for thread drift, I should know better :}
In a similar vein, if 2 engines good, 4 engines bad, how come the MD11F never really made it in the market (3 engines being somewhere in between good and bad... :) )'
I believe that triple 7 motors come with their own respective fwd cowl fairings pre attached. It's all part of the QEC package (quick engine exchange). Mighty big cabin required to accept an engine with a 10' diameter cowl fairing.
The MD 11 had disappointedly proved to be a lousy pax airplane, but I had thought that it was much loved as a freighter for the economics. I understand that Fed Ex wanted many more, and even the air cargo arm of Luffty had requested that the MD11 assembly line be reopened, but too late . . . . Ex pax MD 11's at that time were then eagerly snapped up for freighter conversion.
In February, of 2001, I had sadly witnessed the last MD11 depart it's LGB factory (a freighter, also in Lufthansa colors, I think).
Fr8Dog
1st May 2009, 00:24
CR2 is right on target as he is is most of the time. Can't get a 777 engine through the side door on another 777. It will fit in the side door of the 74 with about 2 inches to spare on the top, I have watched them go in and out on more than three occasions. Also the nose door allows things like oil drilling equipment, radio towers, wind generators etc. I would not count out the 74 for many years to come, but that is just my opinion.
superspotter
1st May 2009, 04:42
That could have been interesting, if Boeing had made the front end of the 777F open up like the CL-44 of yesteryear.
Just a thought......
Can't get a 777 engine through the side door on another 777That's when you will need to charter a 748f . . .so as to service your AOG 777f:)
skychick2
3rd May 2009, 10:27
Sorry for hijacking this thread,but does anyone knows how Nippon Cargo is doing in the present world economic climate(crisis) ?
I heard that they have close there NY base some time ago,any truth to this this ? :rolleyes: Any info would be appreciated !!! Thanks Skychick 2
oceancrosser
3rd May 2009, 18:18
That could have been interesting, if Boeing had made the front end of the 777F open up like the CL-44 of yesteryear.
Just a thought......
Never saw a CL44 with its front end open except for what you call damage.
All of them had a swingtail though for a significant opening. :ugh:
superspotter
3rd May 2009, 18:53
I knew it was one end that opened:sad:
I was thinking of the enlarged version...the guppy:8
muduckace
3rd May 2009, 20:11
In a similar vein, if 2 engines good, 4 engines bad, how come the MD11F never really made it in the market (3 engines being somewhere in between good and bad... http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/smile.gif )'
There were a number of reasons for the MDC buyout but shutting down the MD11F was certainly a big one. The 777 could not compete at the time (they did not even want to try) and the 744F trailed behind in pound per mile/fuel burn.
The MD-11 became a better option when markets receded, ATLAS just about tanked with a whole fleet of 747's in a slow market.
The 748f will probably be more efficient than the currently being produced 777f that is based on the 777LR. Boeing added alot of composite structure to the LR as I understand to make it a competative aircraft.
We must also take into account the difference betwen the value of bulking out v/s weighing out an aircraft. A 4 engine bird will allways be valuable with weight in mind. Package companies will probably do well with the 777F as the rarely take off at max gross but the aircraft has volume. The 748-F is sure to be a great heavylift aircraft.
Another aspect of the industry that the 747 and 380 are an asset in are regulated markts. If you are only allowed x amount of slots at an airport but have lots of product (pax/freight) you can maximize revenue by having a larger aircraft.
Back on the main topic, these aircraft if 7R4 powered should be quite marketable. I too have never seen a 7R4 on a -200 but it is a great improvement over the pain in the ass -70.
CargoOne
4th May 2009, 19:59
Don't forget that outsize cargo represents only a small percentage (actually a fracture of it) in overall movement. While it is good to keep versatility especially if it not incurs extra operating expenses (like 747 NCD vs SCD), $/lbs/nm or EUR/kg/km is ruling the market and I believe we can see the trend very clearly with 744BCF, 777F, MD11, A330F etc. Surely there is a place for 747NCD on the market but in most cases beancounters will prefer to turn down 0.5% of the bookings in return for lower cost for the remaining 99.5% of the cargo.
Russkies are still there for real outsize job with AN124, so you would not miss your spare GE90 :)
CargoMatatu
5th May 2009, 07:14
The NCD is not solely for outsize cargo.
At busy hubs where ground time/slots are at a premium it makes for very versatile ground handling, using both doors reducing ground time considerably.
Remember, time in the air is money.
The B-777F,will slowly kill the 747-400.
jetjock6
5th May 2009, 20:09
And the 747-8 will kill them both.
400drvr
8th May 2009, 12:56
The key word here is SLOWLY!
:)
The topic is not Polar/Atlas ....
Fr8Dog
11th May 2009, 12:34
CR2
Top Dog Mod
Moderator
Join Date: May 2000
Location: New York
Age: 40
Posts: 1,909 The topic is not Polar/Atlas ....
__________________
CR2
Allways kind of ends up there does it not? :D
layinlow
18th May 2009, 15:22
I don't think the 747-800 will kill the 777, not in the least. The fuel burn is just too good on the 777, a whopping 25% less (Boeing's numbers). The -800 will have a good niche though if for no other reason than the outsized cargo market.
Fr8Dog
18th May 2009, 15:41
"I don't think the 747-800 will kill the 777, not in the least. The fuel burn is just too good on the 777, a whopping 25% less (Boeing's numbers). The -800 will have a good niche though if for no other reason than the outsized cargo market."
Layinlow, There is no plans to build any Boeing -800 aircraft that I am aware of. Are you by chance referring to the new 747-8?
:p
slowto280
18th May 2009, 21:49
Man, you must be a joy to work with!!! Get over yourself, will you?
Deltabravowhiskey
19th May 2009, 04:10
I don't think the 747-800 will kill the 777, not in the least. The fuel burn is just too good on the 777, a whopping 25% less (Boeing's numbers). The -800 will have a good niche though if for no other reason than the outsized cargo market.
A Lear 31 beats the 777 hands down, 96% lower fuel burn!
The -8F carries 308,000# of freight. The 777 carries 226,000#
The 777 carries 27.7% less freight and burns 25% less fuel...
Point is the -8F has the advantage with economy of scale in regards to operating economics if you want to compare the two head to head.
When you take into account the higher maintenance costs associated with ETOPS certification especially the more stringent levels required for traditional freighter routes, the 777 rapidly loses it's edge with (2) engines vs the (4) of the -8F.
Each aircraft is intended for specific markets, it is highly unlikely that either will compete against each other in revenue service.
DBW
Fr8Dog
19th May 2009, 20:49
"Each aircraft is intended for specific markets, it is highly unlikely that either will compete against each other in revenue service".
DBW
Nice to see someone post something with knowledge for a change.
Slowto280 Your words are crushing, just having a little fun and setting the record straight. I will think of you while I am slowing to M 2.5. :ugh:
FR8
CargoOne
19th May 2009, 23:22
Deltabravowhiskey
what if we compare volumetric payload?
"Each aircraft is intended for specific markets, it is highly unlikely that either will compete against each other in revenue service". I recall that back in the early 1970's, it was commonly thought that the SST would grow in numbers and ultimately prove the dominant airplane that would noticeably change aviation's face in the early 21 century. Who then would have ever thought that it would actually be the RJ (if one even new what an RJ was 40 years ago)?
Although these aircraft all factor in different markets. . . . and with regards to air cargo, the popularity trend to go efficiently smaller continues - otherwise the Scarebus A- 380f''s success (if success ever comes) would be growing.
Need to Know Basis
20th May 2009, 10:57
SST ? That was Boeing`s idea ? If I remember correctly its name was Concorde ( the acft that actually flew ). Not the drawing !!
Hate it when people try to change history......sorry back to work after the Jet Blast.
Need to Know Basis,
I'm sure L38 was referring to the concept of supersonic travel, not an EU bash. You need to get over it!
bpp
Deltabravowhiskey
21st May 2009, 14:14
Deltabravowhiskey
what if we compare volumetric payload?
Get an Antonov.