F.pier From Italy, joined Aug 2000, 1527 posts, RR: 9 Posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 4666 times:
The most of the cargo airlines use B742F. I know that it's much cheaper to buy than the 744, but the 744 can carry hevier loads and fuel consumptions are lower.
If you look at the cargo airlines fleets you'll see that they still fly very old airplanes because they don't need to have new planes for image reasons.
Do you think a 742F delivered in seventies can still be used in a profitable way for a long time?
That's the point indeed. A 744F is cheaper to operate when you can have it in the air for at least 10 hours a day, but it's acquisition and write off or lease costs on hourly basis is much too high if you are more an ad hoc operator.
Cargolux flies their 747s around for 15 hours a day so for them it's worth to have 744Fs, but like Kalitta, MK and Polar have less and more fluctuating flights, the higher fuel costs are covered by the fact they can uplift on ad hoc basis. Kalitta can be called by the USAF to use 5 747s to bring cargo to the mid east, and have the same 747s parked for the next week.
nobody has ever died from hard work, but why take the risk?
Magyarorszag From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 4609 times:
Quoting F.pier (Thread starter): I know that it's much cheaper to buy than the 744, but the 744 can carry hevier loads and fuel consumptions are lower.
But if you're leasing aircraft on ACMI (Aircraft; crew; maintenance & insurance - all inclusive) basis like MH is doing with CC, it may have been cheaper up to not too long ago. But it appears that MH is on the verge (if not already started) of receiving brand new B744F, which may be better with todays oil price...
CX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4489 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 4609 times:
As stated above, for certain users the 747-200 is a better platform. Cargo airlines that constantly have a need for aicraft though are turning more and more to the 747-400F. It is cheaper to operate and does not burn as much fuel. Air France has a large fleet of 747-200Fs. They operate them today because of a fuel hedge. When that fuel hedge and its cost advantages evaporate in a few years, the 777-200Fs are going to enter the fleet.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
Laxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26856 posts, RR: 50
Reply 4, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 4593 times:
The trade off between the B742F and B744F comes down to acquisition cost versus operating cost.
For most cargo carriers that have somewhat low equipment utilization, the B744F even with its greater payload/range capabilities and lower fuel burn would not offset the much higher ownership (purchase or lease) cost compared to an older B742F.
Unless if you can keep a B744F busy consistently on a daily basis you wont be able to cover its ownership cost.
Thus generally the B744F has been good for established scheduled service operations, while the B742F is better for the lower utilization operations and charters.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California