lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10689 posts, RR: 100 Reply 1, posted (2 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 12949 times:
This surprised me. I guess the 748F performs 'well enough' for CX!
CX Flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6341 posts, RR: 56 Reply 2, posted (2 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 12889 times:
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 1): Quoting CX Flyboy (Thread starter):
Boeing will buy back four 747-400BCFs from CX.
Nice deal for CX...
CX has been desperate to offload the BCFs remaining in our fleet. B-KAE had already been painted all-white for return to Boeing soon. All the 744BCFs have been retired from CX service already - not a particularly fruitful experiment for CX was the BCF!
Air China Cargo has also been desperate to offload their BCFs so this 777F deal works well for them.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26720 posts, RR: 83 Reply 4, posted (2 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 12482 times:
747-400 converted freighters lost their luster as soon as the 777 freighter entered service. The latest-spec 777Fs will lift 95% of the weight and 89% of the volume with significantly better operating costs.
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 1): I guess the 748F performs 'well enough' for CX!
While it doesn't yet have the payload-range that CX had hoped, their head of Cargo Operations has been quite favorable of the type in his comments to the press.
LAXintl From United States of America, joined exactly 13 years ago today! , 22056 posts, RR: 51 Reply 5, posted (2 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 12393 times:
Interesting on the 777F.
Only couple months ago I heard CX Cargo VP Nick Rhodes speak about how they were looking forward to the 777F as it would provide a good regional feeder plane, allow the permanent retirement of the mostly parked BCF fleet, and also be good to replace -400F on some markets that did not warrant the capacity.
Clearly there were ongoing talks behind the scenes with partner Air China and regarding their joint venture cargo carrier operations.
Interesting !
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
francoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3196 posts, RR: 10 Reply 7, posted (2 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 12260 times:
The 748F is a good fit for CX. A top up order was to be expected, and I would bet on a couple more in the future.
The 777F, on the other hand, is not that convenient for CX's ops. Their cargo operation doesn't palletize loads.
The pallets are just delivered and transferred between aircrafts. Different types mean different pallet shapes and extra workload to transfer between different aircrafts, which Cathay is not geared to do.
Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
na From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 9614 posts, RR: 10 Reply 10, posted (2 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 11878 times:
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 9): Because they have to wait at least a year before Boeing can deliver a 777? Just guessing.
Likely, yes.
Seems all the operators still flying 742Fs will be able to get 744BCFs for graps soon. The whole cargo-market situation is not looking good for further 744 conversions right now. Are there any frames under conversion at the moment?
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10470 posts, RR: 20 Reply 12, posted (2 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 11523 times:
It notes on top of it all, the flood of pax 777Ws and A330s into the airlines means a lot more belly space has come onto the market, undermining the pure freighter companies.
I'm not at all sure why Boeing would be taking back BCFs, unless there was a clause allowing customers to return them if they bought new iron.
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6258 posts, RR: 39 Reply 13, posted (2 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 11500 times:
Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 2):
CX has been desperate to offload the BCFs remaining in our fleet. B-KAE had already been painted all-white for return to Boeing soon. All the 744BCFs have been retired from CX service already - not a particularly fruitful experiment for CX was the BCF!
What exactly was their problem with the BCF? Does Air China have the same complaint?
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
KarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 1790 posts, RR: 6 Reply 15, posted (2 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 11038 times:
Quoting kaitak (Reply 14): Does the BCF have any difference in range or payload compared to the standard -400F?
I found this on aspireaviation.com:
"As for grounding the 747-400BCF, the cost saving is more significant as not only the 747-8F is 16% more fuel efficient per payload tonne than the 747-400F and around 23% more fuel efficient than the 747-400BCF, the 747-400BCF is also maintenance-heavy which is very expensive."
So yes, there is clearly a difference between the -400BCF and the -400F.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26720 posts, RR: 83 Reply 16, posted (2 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 10335 times:
Quoting Revelation (Reply 12): I'm not at all sure why Boeing would be taking back BCFs, unless there was a clause allowing customers to return them if they bought new iron.
Boeing can re-sell them to operators currently flying 747-200 freighters. They can also use them to re-stock their 747-400 spares stores.
Quoting kaitak (Reply 14): Does the BCF have any difference in range or payload compared to the standard -400F?
The 747-400BCF is about 9% down on volume due to floor loading and whether or not one cuts forward on the upper deck to recover some extra ceiling space. Payload will depend on what the weights of the donor aircraft are.
LAXintl From United States of America, joined exactly 13 years ago today! , 22056 posts, RR: 51 Reply 17, posted (2 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 10223 times:
I forgot the exact quote but the Atlas Air CEO in an earnings call made a comment about the BCF.
He basically said the model lacked payload capability (it has higher OEW, lacks nose door etc), had heavier maintenance burden, and worse operational reliability.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
flightsimer From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 409 posts, RR: 1 Reply 18, posted (2 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 8331 times:
LAXintl From United States of America, joined exactly 13 years ago today! , 22056 posts, RR: 51 Reply 19, posted (2 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 7438 times:
Here is what the head of Cathay Cargo had to say about the BCF during an interview with Air Cargo World in November.
As the 747-8s entered service, Cathay has taken out older freighters, namely its 747-400BCFs.
When fuel prices were lower, there was a case on some routes to use older freighters, but in the current situation the BCFs are a burden, especially on long-haul routes, Rhodes reflected. “If you fly Hong Kong-Paris and back [with an older freighter], your revenue gets nowhere near covering the cost of fuel,” he said.
Cathay’s fleet is now down to 21 freighter aircraft — eight 747-8s, which are used chiefly across the Pacific, six 747-400ERFs (deployed on sectors to Europe) and six 747-400Fs serving regional lanes. Cathay also has one remaining 747-400BCF on lease, which is used largely for backup. “Twenty one freighters seems optimal for us in the current market conditions. We will get two more -8s next year. I hope the market will pick up, otherwise we will have to take out some capacity,” Rhodes said.
Also -
A few years back, the idea of turning some of these 747-400s into all-cargo configurations may have looked appealing, but the downturn has all but buried such a scenario. “There is no sense in retaining any -400 for conversion. It would take a dramatic fall in the fuel price to make that look viable,” Rhodes commented.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10470 posts, RR: 20 Reply 20, posted (2 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 7063 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 16): Boeing can re-sell them to operators currently flying 747-200 freighters. They can also use them to re-stock their 747-400 spares stores.
From what I can see, most of the -200Fs are already gone, and many of their operators went with them, or are on the verge of going with them.
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 15): "As for grounding the 747-400BCF, the cost saving is more significant as not only the 747-8F is 16% more fuel efficient per payload tonne than the 747-400F and around 23% more fuel efficient than the 747-400BCF, the 747-400BCF is also maintenance-heavy which is very expensive."
Quoting Stitch (Reply 16): The 747-400BCF is about 9% down on volume due to floor loading and whether or not one cuts forward on the upper deck to recover some extra ceiling space.
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 19): Rhodes reflected. “If you fly Hong Kong-Paris and back [with an older freighter], your revenue gets nowhere near covering the cost of fuel,” he said.
All very interesting. In a way it can be looked at as a positive for Boeing, especially the 3rd quote, which can be read as saying if you want to be a player you need to have the -8F.
CX Flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6341 posts, RR: 56 Reply 21, posted (2 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 6645 times:
Quoting na (Reply 8): Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 2):
Air China Cargo has also been desperate to offload their BCFs so this 777F deal works well for them.
Cathay now own half of Air China Cargo. Cathay's investment in the airline involved a large payment not of cash, but of several 747-400BCFs in lieu of cash payment. God knows why Air China agreed to such a thing....I suppose CX marketed the BCFs to them very well ! Anyway Air China soon told CX that they did not want the remaining frames that were going to them but it was all part of a deal in black and white and it was hard to get out of it. CX wanted those BCFs gone from it's own fleet. This latest deal obviously works for everyone and I wonder whether that is a big part of the reason why these 8 777Fs have been diverted to Air China Cargo. Sounds like part of a very complicated behind the scenes deal.
As for the latest BCF, I imagine it will still join the Air China Cargo fleet but for how long would be interesting to know, especially since the 777Fs start arriving this year to them.
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10689 posts, RR: 100 Reply 22, posted (2 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 5296 times:
I'm still waiting for another 748I order. I haven't given up hope yet.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
747-400 converted freighters lost their luster as soon as the 777 freighter entered service. The latest-spec 777Fs will lift 95% of the weight and 89% of the volume with significantly better operating costs.
That is a wise move by Boeing. While cutting 744 future revenue.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 4): While it doesn't yet have the payload-range that CX had hoped, their head of Cargo Operations has been quite favorable of the type in his comments to the press.
I think you noticed all my comments were 'understated.' I'll be more excited about the 748 after a little weight loss and an engine PIP, but it is a good airframe.
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 15): the 747-400BCF is also maintenance-heavy which is very expensive."
I'm not surprised that the BCFs have a few extra issues...
Quoting Revelation (Reply 20): From what I can see, most of the -200Fs are already gone, and many of their operators went with them, or are on the verge of going with them.
How many hours are the 742Fs flying per year? I'm just curious. I'd imagine they are not high utilization today.
sweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1551 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (2 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4271 times:
With less heavy air freighters in the future air forces the 748f can find a niche, somewhat outsized cargo can be loaded through the nose door, not very wide or high items but long items that no other cargo aircraft can load through the side door. And it can carry a decent load about as far as the 77F, 130t iirc. It will need infrastructure that heavy airlift does not.
Flyer732 From Namibia, joined Nov 1999, 1334 posts, RR: 27 Reply 24, posted (2 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4142 times:
Quoting kaitak (Reply 14): Is it that the -BCF doesn't have an opening nose section (as on standard 744F/748Fs), which obviously makes loading/unloading a pain.
Not really, on the 744F if there isn't a need for oversized cargo, they won't open the nose door. I can't tell you how many times I've watched Cargolux in LUX load a 744F without ever opening the nose door.
VC10er From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 2428 posts, RR: 9 Reply 25, posted (2 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1583 times:
Why did FedEx never fly a 747 of any type? I am a total novice here, but when I see UPS 747's (I assume they still have them) why were they wrong for FedEx? I am fully aware of the FedEx 767/777 orders, why no 748F? Curious!
The world is missing love, let's use our flights to spread it!
Flying-Tiger From Germany, joined Aug 1999, 4111 posts, RR: 39 Reply 27, posted (2 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1351 times:
Quoting CX Flyboy (Thread starter):
Basically, three more 748Fs ordered (To be delivered 2013!! - what frames are these?)
Existing order for eight 777Fs cancelled and transferred to Air China Cargo who will sell seven 747-400BCFs.
CX has taken up options for five 777Fs.
Boeing will buy back four 747-400BCFs from CX.
Can´t get rid of the feeling that this one of the less-stellar freighter deals of Boeing. In total it is just three new freighters added for Boeing, the loss of one B777F blue chip client and at the same time getting stuck with 11 747-400BCFs with a ... ehmmm... limited market perspective. Sounds more like damage control than a deal to say "horray" about.
na From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 9614 posts, RR: 10 Reply 28, posted (2 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1328 times:
Quoting Flying-Tiger (Reply 27): Can´t get rid of the feeling that this one of the less-stellar freighter deals of Boeing. In total it is just three new freighters added for Boeing, the loss of one B777F blue chip client and at the same time getting stuck with 11 747-400BCFs with a ... ehmmm... limited market perspective. Sounds more like damage control than a deal to say "horray" about.
Well, you never know. CX is in the pipeline to order a VLA, and this could point towards the 748I!
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26720 posts, RR: 83 Reply 29, posted (2 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1315 times:
Quoting Flying-Tiger (Reply 27): Can´t get rid of the feeling that this one of the less-stellar freighter deals of Boeing...Sounds more like damage control than a deal to say "horray" about.
If Boeing was willing to "buy the business", I expect we'd see a fair bit more 747-8 Intercontinental orders and Boeing would not be trying to secure freighter orders to fill production slots.
CX still has options for the 777 Freighter, so they could eventually become an operator.
And customers might have a bit more confidence buying 747-400BCFs direct from the OEM (it sounds like one of them might already have been placed by Boeing).
Sponsor Message: 
From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6341 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10689 posts, 
, 22056 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 1790 posts, 
From France, joined Oct 2001, 3196 posts, 
From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 9614 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 11956 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1551 posts, 
From Namibia, joined Nov 1999, 1334 posts, 
From Malaysia, joined Nov 2003, 2040 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
