British Cargo G-KILO

[The AvgasDinosaur]

Is it true that a steward or stewardess was always a member of the crew ?
Allegedly to provide in flight catering.
Where did she operate to/from.
Were her flight crews dedicated to cargo ops or just rostered from the B.747-200 pool ?
Thanks for your time and trouble.
Be lucky
David

[Airclues]

Is it true that a steward or stewardess was always a member of the crew ?

No. A cabin crew member was never carried on the 747 freighter although one was carried on the earlier 707 freighter.

G-KILO was operated by standard 747 crews. One could operate to JFK on a passenger aircraft and then return on the freighter.

G-KILO operated mainly LHR-JFK. It was sold to Cathay.

[Lordflasheart]

Wot Capt Airclues said …..

The wonderful freighter steward or stewardess went out when the three 707 freighters were sold for peanuts – allegedly $250,000 per ship including the dual Delco Carousel INSs.

By the time G-KILO arrived someone had done a productivity deal that said there would be no cabin crew on freighters, so for the single RR-200 747 freighter the crew was Captain, F/O and Flight Engineer; no loadie, spanner or cabin crew. General routine after halfway up the climb was - F/O goes and gets the dinner on while F/E gets into F/Os seat and does a bit of poling – usually better than the F/O. After that, refreshments were done by whoever went off for comfort breaks. Rest facilities consisted of a few pax seats on the minimal upper deck, with a balcony looking aft over the main deck.

The ginormous and usually well filled hold got a bit lonely and scary way down the back, looking at all the igloos and covered pallets in the dark, imagining what might jump out at you, so a good question to put to the Captain when you got back to the flight deck was “Hey Skipper – if I din’t come back – who ya gonna send to find me ? ”

In addition to the regular LHR-JFK with 100 tonnes there was a weekly round the world LHR – DXB – HKG – NRT – ANC – LHR. Because trips and crews were (sensibly) not dedicated to the freighter, you could find a freighter sector on any trip line.

When the Falklands war kicked off, it was alleged that the MoD rang BA to say – “We really need your 747 freighter pronto via the STUFT protocol.” only to be told “Sorry chaps, we sold it to Cathay years ago.”
Eeeeeh it were great fun !

LFH

..............

[Peak Tram Driver]

Another irony, G-KILO became VR-HVY, during Gulf War one, she was painted white and helped the RAF with freight movement from Brize to the Middle East. Six months later Cathay got Heathrow landings slots to!

[main_dog]

Ah, B-HVY (formerly VR-HVY and G-KILO), did my base training on her... and she survived :}

[The AvgasDinosaur]

Thanks everyone for your time and trouble.
Got any more tales of G-KILO or BA Cargo in general ?
Be lucky
David

[Wycombe]

she was painted white and helped the RAF with freight movement from Brize to the Middle East

I was at Brize and she flew the mail (100 tonnes of it most nights). Quite often it was for people/units who had already returned home due to the shortness of the campaign!

[old freightdog]

bloody good post Esquires, thanks for ratteling the (very old) memory bells!

[Bob the Dog]

The Ethiopian Airline freighters still operate with a cabin attendant to serve the crew.

[CV880]

Cathay improved to minimal upper deck layout BA had on G-KILO by moving the rear bulkhead and bunks aft, installing some cabin windows (had none before), replacing the triple economy seat with some business class seats and adding to the very small galley to enable more supplies to be carried. Also replaced the -524C2 engines with D4s when available and increased the MTOW.

[Lordflasheart]

CV880 - Aaaaah the old-style Cathay management was “all heart” wasn’t it. I suppose you got someone to make your tea too ? Bunks indeed ! There weren’t any bunks on G-KILO because there were never enough chaps in the crew to use them (legally that is, even if there had been)

If you had bunks in VR-HVY, what really long sectors did it fly ? It must have been an interesting trade-off between fuel and freight, unless it was really high-value.

It reminds me that later on, we were forbidden by the FOD to use the on-flight-deck bunks on the 747 Classic pax a/c unless it was an augmented crew (more than three) Even though the F/E could wake the sleeper without leaving his seat. It further reminds me that a little while later BA placed a second order for 747-400s and paid for the crew loo and bunks to be removed – “400-lite” I think. Really useful, like buying 777s without proper crew rest, while another Brit LH airline recently bought A330s without crew rest too.

For sometime after selling the 707 Freighters, BA paid JAL to do its cargo work with (I think) DC-8 freighters on the trans-ANC route. JAL had bought a fuel mine in Alaska and it was claimed that it was cheaper to pay JAL to do the our freighting. IIRC that caused my old mate Capt Noisy to utter some public apoplexy in the firelighter.

LFH

...............

[main_dog]

If you had bunks in VR-HVY, what really long sectors did it fly ?

As I recall we used those bunks on B-HVY (and our six other classic freighters) mainly for positioning crew (and yes they usually served tea before retiring :}).

[Flightwatch]

CV880 - Aaaaah the old-style Cathay management was “all heart” wasn’t it. I suppose you got someone to make your tea too ? Bunks indeed ! There weren’t any bunks on G-KILO because there were never enough chaps in the crew to use them (legally that is, even if there had been)

If you had bunks in VR-HVY, what really long sectors did it fly ? It must have been an interesting trade-off between fuel and freight, unless it was really high-value.

It reminds me that later on, we were forbidden by the FOD to use the on-flight-deck bunks on the 747 Classic pax a/c unless it was an augmented crew (more than three) Even though the F/E could wake the sleeper without leaving his seat. It further reminds me that a little while later BA placed a second order for 747-400s and paid for the crew loo and bunks to be removed – “400-lite” I think. Really useful, like buying 777s without proper crew rest, while another Brit LH airline recently bought A330s without crew rest too.

For sometime after selling the 707 Freighters, BA paid JAL to do its cargo work with (I think) DC-8 freighters on the trans-ANC route. JAL had bought a fuel mine in Alaska and it was claimed that it was cheaper to pay JAL to do the our freighting. IIRC that caused my old mate Capt Noisy to utter some public apoplexy in the firelighter.

LFH

...............

You are getting your stories mixed up. In a flash of brilliance one FOD decided to remove the crew loo on all -400s so allowing for two more club seats on the upper deck. This lead to howls of outrage from the crews, it was a frequent occurrence for enormous rows between crew, who were waiting to use the loo after rest before resuming duty to land the aircraft, and queuing pax who were waiting for their morning ablutions and who weren't pleased to have a crew member sneak in before them. No matter how hard you tried there were many who couldn't be placated and filed complaints not to mention Air Safety Reports complaining about not being able to get to the controls in sufficient time before arrival. The next FOD came a couple of years later and was persuaded to reverse the decision and, lo and behold, it was found that many of the previously removed toilets had been junked thereby costing a small fortune to replace the loos. Another great commercial decision.

ALL BA -400s were delivered with bunks. They did order and receive 4 -400 Lites. The only noticeable difference was the absence of the fuel tank in the tail thus depriving the machine of 10k kgs of juice. Memory fails as to whether there were different operating weights but I suppose it was quite likely as without tail fuel the C of G would have been restricted. Interestingly those 4 aircraft have now been converted to "high J" configuration thereby signalling that they will be staying into the next decade. The other 14 selected are more-or-less the last to be delivered. These aircraft did have their toilets removed and then reinstated but they had bunks like all others. I believe the lack of flexibility was the reason for not ordering more, the tail tank was used on long range ops. I doubt it is used nowadays as there are no long range ops left on the fleet.

[Wycombe]

....what's the longest scheduled sector a BA 744 now does?

[no sponsor]

Outbound Mexico City blocks at 11.50 , followed by a slightly shorter Cape Town and Joburg.

[Lordflasheart]

Flightwatch - You are getting your stories mixed up.

Thank you for the insightful clarifications. One of my school reports said "He remembers little, and that inaccurately."

... lo and behold, it was found that many of the previously removed toilets had been junked
Sounds like the equally brilliant deactivation of the Classic main doors (Doors 4 ?) which went much the same way.

.................

[Sir Richard]

Doors 3 over the wing.

[Manker]

I was part of the crew that flew B-HVY (formally G-KILO) on its last flight. We flew it from Hong Kong to Cardiff on the 28 April 2008, and then to Kemble on the 29th to be scrapped. After take off from Cardiff the gear would not retract but we decided to forgo the abnormal checklist and leave it down for the remainder of the airframes life.

[main_dog]

Good call. I remember reading about that and smiling: stubborn old girl wasn't going to be put to pasture without at least a bit of a fight. ;)