Date: 01 Jan 97 20:59:21 From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Ben) Organization: mail.club-internet.fr References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Followups: 1
View raw article or MIME structure
kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: >>CARGOLUX which used 747 400F said that they have lot of difficulties >>to rentabilised this aircraft. >I read an article about the 747-400F a while back. It's main benefit >compared to the 747-200F is greater range with a full cargo load. For >many interesting cargo routes, however, it's range isn't enough more >to eliminate fuel stops. I think SFO-NRT was an example. Both planes >need a fuel stop, usually at ANC. The fact that the -400F could fly a >greater percentage of the flight before stopping is neither interesting >nor useful. With a plentiful supply of inexpensive -200s which can be >converted to freighters, the -400F was claimed to be a fairly difficult >sell. It's not a range problem. But the initial cost is higher than a modification of a 747 200. CARGOLUX has to fly more and his market has small potential. Airbus makes a study under the potential of new aircraft vs second hand one. The conclusion is that for high capacity (B747), the return on investment is better wirh a second hand one.