Why no 4-engine freighters at FedEx?
08-15-2007 | 11:13 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
From: CRJ-200 Captain
Why no 4-engine freighters at FedEx?
What's the reason for no jumbo's at the largest freight airline in the world? I saw a ton of Boeings (with 4 engines) at Tokyo Narita last week, and noticed only trijets for FedEx.
Is this aircraft too expensive to operate? What other reason would explain your avoidance of the venerable Boeing jumbo's? Thanks! Over to you pro's-
Is this aircraft too expensive to operate? What other reason would explain your avoidance of the venerable Boeing jumbo's? Thanks! Over to you pro's-
08-15-2007 | 11:24 PM
#2
APC co-founder
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,853
Likes: 0
From: B777
Whats that phrase - Been there done that?
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1177472/M/
"Federal Express" has operated 747's in the past, although why feed 4 motors when 3 will do? As the Whale gets more efficient, maybe the extra cubes and gross wt. will be more attractive.
This from an outsider looking in (said another way - I don't know why).
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1177472/M/
"Federal Express" has operated 747's in the past, although why feed 4 motors when 3 will do? As the Whale gets more efficient, maybe the extra cubes and gross wt. will be more attractive.
This from an outsider looking in (said another way - I don't know why).
08-15-2007 | 11:42 PM
#3
Gets Off
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 688
Likes: 0
From: Nordskog Industries Field Technician
I'm sure someone else has a better answer to this, and it may have been a thread in the past, but it has something to do with our AMJ containers and not being able to utilize all of the cargo space.
08-16-2007 | 12:59 AM
#4
Banned
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
From: One foot in the garbage bag...
My understanding is that the analysts at Fedex don't care for the extra space the whale has compared with the Douglas tri-jets. The 747 has a "catwalk" along both walls about 18 inches wide that allows one to walk from one end of the fully-loaded main deck to the other and back. Also, there is an area near the nose [most carriers keep spare parts/tool boxes here] that isn't used. And then there is the whole upper deck, which is usually just a galley, a lavatory, some bunk beds and half a dozen chairs. Apparently, all this extra space uses fuel and makes the aircraft less efficient from the bean-counter standpoint. As the need for lift gets greater and greater and engines get more and more efficient, I suspect that this extra space won't look so ugly to certain people. Go figure-
08-16-2007 | 03:29 AM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
From: MD-11 Capt
What's the reason for no jumbo's at the largest freight airline in the world? I saw a ton of Boeings (with 4 engines) at Tokyo Narita last week, and noticed only trijets for FedEx.
Is this aircraft too expensive to operate? What other reason would explain your avoidance of the venerable Boeing jumbo's? Thanks! Over to you pro's-
Is this aircraft too expensive to operate? What other reason would explain your avoidance of the venerable Boeing jumbo's? Thanks! Over to you pro's-
Every engine above 1 decreases A/C reliability by at least 1% Thats first.
Second, The 727, 737 we used to have, in fact most regular tube A/C only take a certain size container that is common between them all. The 747 has a huge volumn, but only usable if you manually build pallets that use that space. To have pallets that you can use in ALL of our A/C and utilize all the space you can't use manual building of pallets or some of the larger builds that you can use to utilize the space in a 747. That creates inefficiency in 747's for US.....Lots of world cargo carriers use 747's because they have time to build pallets to use that space. WE DON'T.
Its all about utilizing space efficiently and quickly.
08-16-2007 | 03:59 AM
#6
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 4,304
Likes: 0
From: MD-11 Captain
I've been to Shanghai several times. While we are pushing back, a UPS 747 on the next parking bay, also going to Anchorage, AK is pushing back at the same time. After the pushback the 2 jets are facing each other on the taxiway. I've asked the UPS crews how much freight they have. Their answer: About 180,000 lbs (almost exactly the same as my MD-11).
So ... the 747 uses approximately 33% more fuel to carry the same amount of freight the EXACT same distance.
I guess that says it all ... that, and as someone else said, more engines increases the chance that you'll have an engine problem preventing departure.
So ... the 747 uses approximately 33% more fuel to carry the same amount of freight the EXACT same distance.
I guess that says it all ... that, and as someone else said, more engines increases the chance that you'll have an engine problem preventing departure.
08-16-2007 | 05:43 AM
#7
Administrator
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 8,025
Likes: 0
From: C-172
Given the logical explanations above, I'd like to know why carriers continue to use the 747 then. I once posted that I'd like to fly as a passenger on one of these freight trains, but was told it was not possible. I think I could make myself very comfortable on the upper deck with its lavatory, bunk bed and chairs.
08-16-2007 | 05:58 AM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
From: MD-11 Capt
Given the logical explanations above, I'd like to know why carriers continue to use the 747 then. I once posted that I'd like to fly as a passenger on one of these freight trains, but was told it was not possible. I think I could make myself very comfortable on the upper deck with its lavatory, bunk bed and chairs.
as to riding, most carry haz cargo and can't carry passengers
08-16-2007 | 06:22 AM
#9
...Whatever It Is!
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,680
Likes: 0
What's the reason for no jumbo's at the largest freight airline in the world? I saw a ton of Boeings (with 4 engines) at Tokyo Narita last week, and noticed only trijets for FedEx.
Is this aircraft too expensive to operate? What other reason would explain your avoidance of the venerable Boeing jumbo's? Thanks! Over to you pro's-
Is this aircraft too expensive to operate? What other reason would explain your avoidance of the venerable Boeing jumbo's? Thanks! Over to you pro's-
Actually, mostly a container issue! With the containers we use, the 747 will not bulk out, lots of dead space. If we palletized all the freight for the 747, it doesn't transload so easily to the rest of the fleet.
08-16-2007 | 10:29 AM
#10
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
From: CRJ-200 Captain
Thanks to all the responders. That actually makes a lot of sense why a jumbo isn't necessarily needed in your operation. Never thought about the extra space that's not used in the bubble on top and the empty area in the nose, plus the sides.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
