neomax wrote:I personally don't buy the excuse that a single part could actually be so expensive as to effectively ground an entire fleet of profitable longhaul airplanes that still have at least a couple more years of useful life left in them but alas, that is their reasoning. Even if the 787/350 are more fuel efficient, I doubt that it was a smart decision to retire a useful, profitable airplane.
Several executives at both UA and DL evaluated the cost of paying for the fuel tank modification and continuing to operate the 747 vs. the cost of retiring the 747 and replacing it with other aircraft with different capacities. They all came to the conclusion that retiring the 747 was the best financial decision. I hope their bosses don't read your post and find out their executives were wrong or they may all be fired.