KLMCedric From Belgium, joined Dec 2003, 809 posts, RR: 23 Posted (7 years 10 months 19 hours ago) and read 13385 times:
Hey everyone, Im in KWI here typing on a arabic keyboard so forgive me for the grammar.
I ve just been chatting with our captain and he told me that pretty soon the
KLM 74M aircraft wont be allowed over US airspace anymore. He was not sure
when this would be but he thought before 2010.
Does anyone know more about this development?
Currently KLM still serves JFK,ORD,IAH and LAX(with very lucrative horse transport) with the 74M. How will they adapt to that situation?
Is the more and more credible 773 order part of the solution?
They sure will need more freighters, maybe convert some of their full pax 744 and put new 773 to replace them for passenger traffic???
Col From Malaysia, joined Nov 2003, 2085 posts, RR: 22
Reply 4, posted (7 years 10 months 18 hours ago) and read 13117 times:
Is this for real! Makes no sense whatsoever. Why refuse a combi, when you allow full FR. From my memory there was one accident with a combi, SAA. More 747 Pax have gone down, but they are still flying in the USA.
LTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 12824 posts, RR: 13
Reply 6, posted (7 years 10 months 18 hours ago) and read 13021 times:
I think there were some topics on the decline of combi aircraft in the USA and elsewhere in the recent past. IIRC, there are issues of fire safety when pax and considerable cargo are on an aircraft. In the USA, laws and rules as to requied fire safety standards changed due to the Valujet crash of 10 years ago, as well as other in-flight freight involved accidents. The fire safety requirements included special bulkheads between the pax and freight sections, fire supression equipment, and other related requirements. You also have long range mid-sized aircraft (767, A-310/330, 757) that cover the mid level pax demands, so you don't need to buy a 747 to cover your mid-sized pax needs and balance the rest of the flight costs with freight.
Hentzz From Estonia, joined Mar 2006, 23 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (7 years 10 months 15 hours ago) and read 12475 times:
Quoting Drerx7 (Reply 10): Nope its been changed to a combi--its been one for about a month or so now.
Thanks for correction, but why did this happen?
I understand the need for cargo capacity, but it needs to make a stop-over.
The B772LR would be able to make this without a stop. Wouldn't it be more reosanable to simply put an extra cargo airplane on the route?
PIA747 From Pakistan, joined Apr 2003, 624 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (7 years 10 months 15 hours ago) and read 12398 times:
I guess i am going to veer slightly off topic here. PIA flight to IAH is now once a week by a 74M. This is expected to go up to twice a week next month. The loads to IAH have not been good from the start, and i thought PIA decided to compliment it with some cargo. However, on talking to the captain who operated the May 5th flight to IAH, i have learnt that PIA is infact not carrying any cargo to/from IAH. Their route economics just keeps on amazing me.
Checo77 From Peru, joined Oct 2004, 1345 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (7 years 10 months 14 hours ago) and read 12349 times:
KLM Cedric, welcome to my RU list!!! Briliant posts regarding KLM must be rewarded!!!
It looks weird that the US will not let the 744M fly. If this happens, it will affect KLM so much that they need to think as of NOW of a replacement. I think we will see a massive (propably 20 pieces) for B773.
Drerx7 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5043 posts, RR: 8
Reply 15, posted (7 years 10 months 13 hours ago) and read 12146 times:
Quoting PIA747 (Reply 13): I guess i am going to veer slightly off topic here. PIA flight to IAH is now once a week by a 74M. This is expected to go up to twice a week next month. The loads to IAH have not been good from the start, and i thought PIA decided to compliment it with some cargo. However, on talking to the captain who operated the May 5th flight to IAH, i have learnt that PIA is infact not carrying any cargo to/from IAH. Their route economics just keeps on amazing me.
Wow--why fly the route then...I mean I like spotting a classic 747 here at IAH, but c'mon are they in it to win it or just exist?
Combis are a lot easier to convert to freighters as the already have the SCD (side cargo door). If KL doesn't find other markets on which they could put the combis, it's the combis that they'll convert to freighters first.
N1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26107 posts, RR: 77
Reply 18, posted (7 years 10 months 12 hours ago) and read 12008 times:
Combis are still allowed to the US and will be for the forseeable future. The rules change relates to new build combis only, any combi built prior to the rules change preventing certification of new build combis is grandfathered in and can fly to and from the US.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
Trex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4428 posts, RR: 14
Reply 20, posted (7 years 10 months 9 hours ago) and read 10745 times:
Quoting N328KF (Reply 19): What about double-decker Combis? You'd use one deck for cargo and the other for passengers. I think this would be a great use for the A380.
I've pointed this out in previous threads, the fire safety problems which concern the FAA should be easily dealt with with 2 decks and you get if you put humans up top and cargo on the main and lower deck essentially A332 if not A343 passenger capacity and almost 744F cargo capacity for almost the same fuel use and half the flight crew. It would be good for many east asian carriers going to US or Europe
Col From Malaysia, joined Nov 2003, 2085 posts, RR: 22
Reply 21, posted (7 years 10 months 7 hours ago) and read 9581 times:
OK, let me get this right. A pax Airbus or Boeing can be purchased new and fly into USA with PAX. But a new build Combi cannot. An even bigger But, is that these new build Airbus/Boeing pax widebodies carry quite a large amount of cargo in their belly's. Pax+Cargo = Combi!.
The 380 would probably sell more if it were available as a combi, more efficient for everyone.
Is it me, or does this seem a little stupid! If Combi's are that dangerous to stop producing them, why aren't they grounded now?
Alexchao From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 688 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (7 years 10 months 7 hours ago) and read 9197 times:
Quoting KLMCedric (Reply 8): How about EVA, dont they use their combis to the US also?
Yes, EVA uses their 747-400 Combi aircraft to SEA, EWR, SFO, and LAX. They have been pondering converting those aircraft to freighters with the ongoing delivery of their 777s. I'm not sure if this has anything to do with the OP's rumored policy change in the U.S.
Atmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 39
Reply 23, posted (7 years 10 months 6 hours ago) and read 9058 times:
Quoting Col (Reply 22): OK, let me get this right. A pax Airbus or Boeing can be purchased new and fly into USA with PAX. But a new build Combi cannot. An even bigger But, is that these new build Airbus/Boeing pax widebodies carry quite a large amount of cargo in their belly's. Pax+Cargo = Combi!.
Pax aircraft can carry cargo. The rule is that you now have to have a fixed bulkhead to separate the cargo section from the passenger section. A floor separating cargo from passengers would count as a fixed barrier. A combi with cargo and pax on the same floor would have to be specifically designed with a fixed bulkhead, and there probably isn't a large enough market for it in any one particular configuration in terms of passenger and cargo compartment size.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!