
Boeing 747s are back in demand as workhorses of global shipping - cepth
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-16/boeing-747s-given-up-for-dead-find-new-life-in-air-cargo-surge
======
czep
Economically, older cargo types can make a lot more sense than a new plane.
With the 744 no longer in production, a used model with another 15 years of
use at $50mn is a better investment than a new 748 at its $400mn list price.
Well-capitalized wet lessors like Atlas can afford to invest in new frames,
but if you're a startup or a primarily passenger airline looking to branch out
into a few cargo routes, you can't necessarily afford to buy new.

A similar trend occurred with the MD-11. Only a hundred or so frames exist,
the last one built in 2000. As a passenger airplane, it was not great: high
deck angle in cruise, noise, and of course poor fuel burn compared to
projections. But for freight, its nearest competitor is the 77F. A few years
ago when I was looking into this, a used MD11 frame would go for around $3mn.
With a D-check you could have it flying again for an all-in cost of maybe
$10-$15mn and it would last another 10 years. The 77F lists for around $200mn.
Thus, even though the M11F is far less efficient than the 77F, it would be 10
or more years before the fuel costs would make up the difference in initial
outlay. This is why the MD-11s are still flying.

Passengers prefer new planes, but cargo doesn't complain!

~~~
dgemm
Overnight cargo carriers like FedEx additionally have economics that make this
worthwhile. Those planes might typically make only two flights in a day, one
to a hub in the evening and one from the hub in the morning.

The efficiency of modern planes is only worth the price if you fly them
constantly.

------
tesseract
Suitability for conversion to freighter service was actually one of the
original design goals for the 747! But back then, the assumption was that
passenger airlines would be transitioning not to twinjets but to supersonic
planes.

~~~
compton_effect
Also airlines are moving from the hub and spoke model to the point to point
model. So the need for 747's and especially A380's for passenger service has
gone way down. Plus both those planes just aren't as efficient as twinjets. In
fact, it was partly the high fuel consumption of the early 747's that
eventually led to Pan-Am's bankruptcy.

------
amorphid
Wendover Productions did a great video YouTube on overnight shipping that goes
into the use of old planes for shipping cargo. [1] . The short version is that
cargo planes spend most of their time sitting around, usually much less time
than an equivalently sized passenger plane.

[1] [https://youtu.be/y3qfeoqErtY](https://youtu.be/y3qfeoqErtY)

~~~
dx034
Although due to its size, 747F are usually used at a higher percentage of the
time. The large freighters (7437, 777) are mostly used between hubs and for
long-distance routes. That's why having fuel efficient planes (e.g. 747-8)
makes sense.

What Wendover describes are cargo planes serving hubs, those often only fly
1-2 returns a day, so having a very cheap plane with higher consumption is
worth it (e.g. A300).

------
omegant
Also four engines are a must if you operate long haul from hot and high
airports like Mexico, Bogota or Quito. Due to engine failure performance
requirements a twin engine needs to cut back almost half the traffic
load(cargo and passangers) to be able to take off within the tables.

Once they have to retire 747 and A340 airlines din't really know what to do in
those airports. New hot and high versions of the twin engines are being
studied, but they have failed to meet the expectations previously.

~~~
russdill
I love how planes like the 747 can attach an extra engine to ferry it around.

[https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/wp-
content/uploads/2016/0...](https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/wp-
content/uploads/2016/01/62014_1283325243.jpg)

~~~
taneq
Is there an attachment point on the other side as well? Being super-cynical, I
can't help but wonder if these attachment points were also added just in case
existing fleets of 747s were pressed into service as long range bombers...

~~~
mannykannot
I was once in the back of a 747, on the left side, when I noticed that the
inboard flap section was jiggling about, even though it was retracted. I tried
to remember if that was normal, and was about to get up and look at the other
side, when the captain announced that any turbulence we might notice was on
account of the extra engine under the wing, being ferried as a replacement for
a failed one.

A question, for anyone who knows about these things: when an engine is being
ferried like this, are the fan and compressors locked in place, or allowed to
spin in the airflow? I would have thought that locking them would impose
unnecessary loads on those parts and create extra drag and turbulence, while
allowing them to rotate would require lubrication?

~~~
omegant
Some information here:
[http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=421613](http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=421613)

Really interesting.

------
thedogeye
Fun fact: The loadmaster and maintenance workers on Flexport's 747 freighter
fly back and forth on the plane 20 days per year, sleeping in the old first
class seats in the upper deck. That is real skin in the game.

The plane began service as a passenger plane for Japan Air in the 90s. I
better its safer than most modern planes with those guys living up there
taking care of her.

~~~
aunty_helen
Cargo planes are generally less safe than passenger planes, this is due to
factors like the pilots (less money for cargo pilots) and the hardware they're
flying (older disused passenger planes being flown cargo).

Fun fact: NCR flight 102 had the loadmaster on board, but is probably one of
the most spectacular caught on camera crashes of a 747. (It's the one where it
looks like it falls out of the sky on take-off) It was also most likely the
loadmasters fault.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Airlines_Flight_102](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Airlines_Flight_102)

[https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/14/birmin...](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/14/birmingham-
ups-crash-sidebar/2654017/) >"have a somewhat higher accident rate than
passenger aircraft,"

~~~
ethagknight
Re: cargo pilots earning less, is that true? I’m in Memphis, and all the Fedex
pilots I know make a ton of money. Most are ex-military. Most of the planes
are definitely older (DC-10/MD-11s trijets!) but they are being aggressively
phased out for new 777s to save on fuel.

~~~
sithadmin
My understanding based on what I hear from friends in the industry is that
this is definitely not true, especially earlier on in a pilot's career. If one
plays their cards right, you can make a good deal more as a 'cargo dog' pilot
when you're young, compared to working for a regional or non-major airline,
which is where most younger passenger pilots begin their careers. However, the
disparity in pay can be more pronounced later on, as senior pilots at the
major airlines can in many cases make much more income, or have a much better
work-life balance.

~~~
ethagknight
Did a little googling as I was curious, and sure enough, wow Fedex pilots are
well paid. Also, I know that while Fedex pilots typically fly overnight, its
only a few times a week and they have the ability to be around for daytime
events. One of my lacrosse coaches in high school was a Fedex pilot, and he
seems to do quite well while being available to arrange his schedule. All-caps
emphasis mine below, Fedex is dramatically higher.

"According to Memphis newspaper The Commercial Appeal, pilots flying for FedEx
earn closer to $234,000 a year ON AVERAGE -- 90% more, to carry boxes from
Point A to Point B, than the folks flying actual human passengers make.
[https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/09/05/pilots-
are...](https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/09/05/pilots-are-about-to-
get-a-10-raise-what-you-need-t.aspx)

"Salaries at Delta Air Lines Inc range from an average of $42,495 to $144,385
a year. Delta Air Lines Inc employees with the job title Airline Captain make
the most with an average annual salary of $188,104

[https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Employer=Delta_Air_Line...](https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Employer=Delta_Air_Lines_Inc/Salary)

------
snake_plissken
Was listening to Bloomberg Radio this morning and Tom Keene brought this up
randomly...I was surprised to hear only ~1500 were ever built; seems like a
low number for a plane that's been around since the 1970s. One thing I have
always wondered about tho is, where are the relatively short domestic route
(2-3 hours) where a 500+ person 747 would make sense? It's almost like
airlines need the inverse for which this plane was made. Same goes for the
A380.

~~~
tesseract
> where are the relatively short domestic route (2-3 hours) where a 500+
> person 747 would make sense

SE Asia and Japan, mostly. The 747 was never intended for domestic US routes -
Pan Am, the launch customer, only had international routes.

~~~
jpatokal
On a related tangent, there was a general expectation that the A380 superjumbo
would find a lot of customers on core domestic routes between Chinese and
Indian megacities like Beijing-Shanghai, Mumbai-Delhi, etc. Aside from the odd
filler hop between long-haul flights, this has entirely failed to materialize:
there's tons of traffic between these cities but the vast majority is single-
aisle 737/A320.

~~~
dx034
It's similar to NYC-LAX or NYC-SFO. Airlines realised that passengers prefer
10 flights a day with a small plane rather than 4 a day with a large plane.
Boarding/deboarding is faster on single-aisle planes and it gives more
flexibility on travel times. Operating costs for large planes are also not
lower, as long as you can get landing rights. So apart from a few
overcongested airports (e.g. London Heathrow), there's really no reason to use
a large plane if you can use a small one instead.

~~~
cylinder
But the amount of gates is pretty much fixed. As Asia becomes richer you can
see large populations now demanding seats. Perhaps the A380 was built a few
decades too soon...

~~~
volkl48
Maybe in a lot of US/European airports that originally date from the first
half of the 1900s, they're too close to the city center and don't have enough
land to expand. Even then, they seem to be regularly able to find ways to get
more gates in renovations (ex: Newark/EWR's Terminal A replacement is going to
have the ability to be expanded for 12 more gates). I'm sure there's an upper
limit, but plenty of those older airports can find space for more gates in
modern redesigns.

Most of the big modern airports were built with massive expansion in mind.
Well outside the city centers and with large land areas that they already own
(and so won't be developed).

------
stcredzero
Not an aeronautics expert, but my understanding is that the 747 design sits on
a local maximum, with regards to figures like wing loading. The A380
deliberately gets bigger by aiming for a less ideal design. Its wing loading
is a bit high. I suspect that this tends to make it less suitable for cargo
than the 747.

~~~
TylerE
Wing loading is a complicated thing... higher wing loading will increase
takeoff and landing speeds a little bit, but it also generally makes for a
smoother ride in flight.

~~~
stcredzero
Smoother ride isn't as high a priority for cargo. Better fuel efficiency and
ease of operations are more important there.

------
em3rgent0rdr
makes sense...economical decision.

~~~
consumer451
As long as fuel prices don't jump, right? What a crazy business.

------
alex_duf
I wonder what's the carbon footprint per kg compared to a boat?

~~~
dsfyu404ed
you probably want per kg per mile since takeoff is going to disproportionately
affect emissions on shorter flights.

~~~
alex_duf
fair enough

------
mrpippy
The title is a bit clickbait-y: passenger 747s _were_ retired by the US
airlines last year, and are not coming back. Passenger to freighter
conversions (the BCF, Boeing Converted Freighter) are also not restarting.
And, it’s highly unlikely there will be any new passenger 747s manufactured.

~~~
ghaff
The headline isn't really wrong. According to the article, they're not being
retired at the rate which seemed likely--because of freighter demand (at least
so long as fuel prices stay relatively low). But, for someone no familiar with
747s, the headline does seem to imply that this unexpected use was discovered
for them--which, of course, isn't the case.

------
joelthelion
An air cargo surge is just what we need when the planet is warming at
unprecedented rates and we have just crossed the 400ppm boundary...

~~~
sho
Planes are an easy target because they're so big, but the industry as a whole
is hyper-focussed on efficiency. If you want to rail against emissions, don't
look at the plane, look at the endless procession of single-occupancy 2 ton
cars the plane is flying over.

And you can get a _lot_ of parcels on a plane like the 747F. Amortised by unit
the emission numbers are in fact very good. It's almost certain that your last
fast food run or uber trip used much more gasoline than it took to get your
last parcel all the way from China.

But why let the facts get in the way of some good old righteous outrage!

~~~
joelthelion
You're comparing things that aren't comparable. Of course single occupancy
cars are inefficient, but that shouldn't obscure the fact that long distance
transportation is a major source of emissions that should be severely limited.
The fact that the industry is efficiency focused is also irrelevant at best,
because they are high emitters in spite of it.

~~~
czep
Airplanes account for 5% of global emissions. Ground transport, 40%.
Presently, the low hanging fruit is ground not only because of its much larger
share of emissions, but also because transitioning to renewables is easier (at
least today) for road than air vehicles.

Noone is going to "severely limit" air transport due to its emissions.
Doubling the cost of oil, maybe, but not emissions.

~~~
jandrese
Ironically a heavy push to electrified cars would reduce demand for gasoline,
potentially dropping the price of oil and saving money for airlines and
reducing ticket prices. The final result would be increased air travel and CO2
emissions from air travel.

Overall still a win for the environment, but not as much of one as people
would want.

