In 2011 I rode on an Air China 747-400M "Combi" on a domestic Chinese run.
The plane was comfortable and seemed to work well for Air China, though it has since been retired. It was weird to walk towards the rear of the aircraft and come to such large blank bulkhead.
I have also booked on the KLM 747-400M that serves ORD-AMS next year. KLM, I believe is the last large operator of the type.
This led me to a curious question. Northwest Airlines historically had a very large cargo presence, including dedicated 747 freighters, as well as some degree of difficulty keeping passenger 747's full year round to Asia. It would seem the 747-400M/Combi would have been an ideal aircraft for them back in the late 90's, early 2000's. Was it ever considered?
Regards
Adam
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
-
- NWAROOSTER
- Posts: 1468
- Joined:
Re: 747-400M Combi question/NWA
Northwest Airlines had no interest in a 747-400M Combi aircraft. They flew only passenger or freighter aircraft. Northwest Airlines was basically the only major airline that flew a separate freighter fleet in the United States. American did it for awhile with there 747-123s which were converted from passenger aircraft but eventually got rid of them. United Airlines also had a couple 747-200Fs for a short time that were acquired used. It would of been too much of a hassle to to operate a Combi when there was dedicated freighter 747s available. The Feds were also getting tough on the bulk head separating the cargo and passenger compartment. It was not really movable as a result. 
Re: 747-400M Combi question/NWA
NWA filled their B744's to Asia. Fares might have been dropped, but they were full (403) all day every day.
Re: 747-400M Combi question/NWA
Out of curiosity with regard to the bulkhead - were they moveable? What’s the safety concern?
Re: 747-400M Combi question/NWA
The bulkhead has to meet certain standards for fireproofing and collision integrity, which would make a movable bulkhead very cumbersome and also require multiple anchor points at every potential bulkhead location.
I believe the further tightening on restrictions for overall fireproofing and main-deck cargo specifically in the aftermath of the SA295 incident is the reason that the FAA will now generally not consider certifying new combi types.
I believe the further tightening on restrictions for overall fireproofing and main-deck cargo specifically in the aftermath of the SA295 incident is the reason that the FAA will now generally not consider certifying new combi types.
-
- JackMeahoff
- Posts: 72
- Joined:
Re: 747-400M Combi question/NWA
EarlyLateORD wrote:
I have also booked on the KLM 747-400M that serves ORD-AMS next year. KLM, I believe is the last large operator of the type.
I see one of KLM's beautiful blue 747s hanging out by Terminal 5 almost every time I go to O'Hare. It would be sweet if KLM bought some new ones...
Re: 747-400M Combi question/NWA
NW flew all their 744 to Asia where the flight sectors are long, KLM flies their 744 combi planes worldwide so many flights were to the east coast of the USA, a relatively short flight from AMS. A combi sounds great if our route map has routes for the plane, since cargo is heavy the combi has a shorter range then a full passenger 744. The Asia Pacific airlines had only full passenger 744 because the distances they fly to America and Europe, When Boeing offered the 747-8 no combi was offered.
Re: 747-400M Combi question/NWA
jfk777 wrote:NW flew all their 744 to Asia where the flight sectors are long, KLM flies their 744 combi planes worldwide so many flights were to the east coast of the USA, a relatively short flight from AMS. A combi sounds great if our route map has routes for the plane, since cargo is heavy the combi has a shorter range then a full passenger 744. The Asia Pacific airlines had only full passenger 744 because the distances they fly to America and Europe, When Boeing offered the 747-8 no combi was offered.
Actually in the beginning the 747 fleet operated all the far East sectors. SIN KUL CGK and even Australia saw the combi. Did a lot of AMS SIN AMS on those birds.
Re: 747-400M Combi question/NWA
I kind of agree with the thread starter, NWA struggled on Asia yields, and meanwhile they had a 747 Cargo airline that also struggled. They might have preferred to run certain routes with 747 Combi. It is a good point. If they had a daily cargo demand, which I don't know if they did. The benefit of having dedicated cargo birds is you can schedule them exactly when and where needed. The Combis would have to do the same route every day.
Maybe they could have had a few combis rotate through their passenger schedule when needed. This could be "almost" seamless to the customers.
Maybe they could have had a few combis rotate through their passenger schedule when needed. This could be "almost" seamless to the customers.
Re: 747-400M Combi question/NWA
There are several problems or issues with a combi operation. Firstly, there is a NPRM issued by the FAA regarding the Combi. It is the result of the SAA fire on their combi from HKG-JNB. The proposals in the rulemaking document (still not finalized, but effectively killed the WB combis) are severe and expensive if implemented. Once the NPRM hit the street the WB Combi was DOA. Most Combi operators either used them as all Pax versions or all Cargo.
The other issue with NW Pacific operation, especially freight, was it tended to be one-way. From Asia to the US. So, the majority of the Asia bound freight could be carried on the existing belly space while the return really needed a freighter. Then there was the Asian recession which started in the mid 2000s which just crushed freight yields and pax were also depressed. So, the combination of those factors really drove the 747Fs out of business. I can remember flying just a all pax from JFK-NRT and the company would make money just by filling the belly and F. The J and Y pax were ust gravey. Up until the mid 2000s that was pretty true on all NW flights from the US to Asia.
The other issue with NW Pacific operation, especially freight, was it tended to be one-way. From Asia to the US. So, the majority of the Asia bound freight could be carried on the existing belly space while the return really needed a freighter. Then there was the Asian recession which started in the mid 2000s which just crushed freight yields and pax were also depressed. So, the combination of those factors really drove the 747Fs out of business. I can remember flying just a all pax from JFK-NRT and the company would make money just by filling the belly and F. The J and Y pax were ust gravey. Up until the mid 2000s that was pretty true on all NW flights from the US to Asia.
Re: 747-400M Combi question/NWA
jfk777 wrote:The Asia Pacific airlines had only full passenger 744 because the distances they fly to America and Europe, When Boeing offered the 747-8 no combi was offered.
That is incorrect. BR, CA, OZ, and KE all operated 744 Combi aircraft alongside the full passenger fleet. I believe CI May Jane operated some as well.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: aga, Angelovo, Areopagus, Berven1, Brickell305, ClarkCasual, DBCoop3r, dbo861, dcaproducer, dmanonice, drerx7, DUBHUB, erjmech03, FARmd90, freqflyer, GCT64, goCOgo, golfalphabravo, HeeseokKoo, hummingbird, itripreport, JetStream36, KCVGSpotter, Lothianred, n515cr, NJFlyer27, overcast, OzarkD9S, par13del, pollitt1985, qf002, rivervisual, ROCnROLL, royroy, SEACASCADIA99, Springbok743, T prop, YSSYplanespoter, YVR744CP, zvzzt and 280 guests