3 ms·
While they're being taken off passenger routes, a cargo conversion makes them great propositions: they have a greater higher Maximum Take-Off Weight (MTOW) and
by PaulRobinson 6y ago
While they're being taken off passenger routes, a cargo conversion makes them great propositions: they have a greater higher Maximum Take-Off Weight (MTOW) and Maximum Landing Weight (MLW) than anything else in the same price class both in terms of purchase price and running costs.
A 747-400 is about $15m, and can carry 412 metric tons. A 747-8 will cost you more, but you're heading up to 447 metric tons.
The only stuff that can lift more is: an A380 which will be _at least_ 10 times the price for an extra 130 tons MTOW, but you can only hand with ~50 tons more, so 80 tons of that is for range you might just not need in a cargo operation; a Strarolaunch which is a complete non-starter on many counts; or, finally an Antonov An-225 which comes at a high purchase price and a whole bag of operational problems you likely don't want as a cargo operator, including high running costs and a relative scarcity of spare parts.
There are plenty of businesses out there who can throw down money for a 747 in reasonable working condition and be confident they'll recoup that after other costs, and also know there are lots and lots of parts out there that will help them keep their fleet in the sky for a long time, and pilots and ground crew with plenty of experience on them too.
- TylerE 6y agoThe AN-225 also has the issue of there being only one of them. I know there has been noises around building at least a few more, but I’ll believe it when I see it.
- jojobas 6y agoHe probably meant An-124.
- throwaway_pdp09 6y agoI assume MTOW must mean the total take-off weight, not the cargo weight. In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747-400#Specifications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747-400#Specifications it suggests about 125 tonnes, which - if I'm correct - means that quoting the MTOW is unhelpful. Also looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747-400#Retirement_and_economic_value https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747-400#Retirement_and_... it disagrees with running costs you say "The 747-400's leasing, resale and salvage value has dropped steeply because it is relatively expensive to operate. As most 747-400s are now more than 20 years old, airlines are beginning to replace them. Airlines using the 747-400 have been retiring the model, replacing it with more fuel efficient aircraft"
- AdrianB1 6y agoRunning cost is a cutthroat competition, companies replace aircrafts for 5-10% better fuel efficiency, which is up to 70% of the running cost. If 747 has 20% worse fuel efficiency than the most modern plane on the market, then it is considered very inefficient, but it actually costs only ~15% more to operate, assuming everything else is comparable.