Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

NWA Freighter

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

BusterHymen

Giant
Joined
Dec 17, 2004
Posts
42
Anyone out there heard anything about NWA converting 747-400 pax to 747-400 freighter, and possibly doing an ACMI contract with Atlas Air Cargo to fill in the gap while they phase out their -200 freighters, and await deliveries of their new -400 freighters???????

I must emphasize that this is only a RUMOR circulating, and must be treated as such!


Happy Holidays!
 
Have not heard that one, but I did hear that NWA is planning to pull some -200's out of the desert to use as freighters. I have no info on who they will be flying them for though.
 
In the new contract NWA has the right to charter A/C for increased flying while the 200's are converted into cargo A/C.The limit is like 6 months.
 
Old news.

NWA is converting some of the -400's to freighters. It's up in the air if anyone will be chartered or wet leased in the interim (unless this has recently changed).
 
Ships 6631 and 6632 are 747-200 pax a/c to be converted to F models.The wet lease provisions of the new agreement are being explored by the company at the present time.
 
NWA has 12 747-200 freighters flying out of Anchorage. They are converting 2 more (747-200's) to freighters in 2005.
 
No offense to NWA, but I find it amazing that any company would waste money converting 747-200's into frieghters, when the 747-400 is far more efficient and better carrying capacity. In the long run the -400 will save BUCKS. In an industry driven by "Cost" and "Oil" this move makes no sense. However, I guess it all depends on how the bean counters crunch the numbers. ;)
 
Last edited:
Aaahhh, Grasshoppersan...

When I was at JAL, we did a cost comparisom -400 v. -200 and -300.

We found that the -200 was less expensive to operate per hour than the -400, and the -300 beat them both in efficiency.
 
Here's my best guess. The -200 airframes are owned, so it's a cost free starting point.

I was also told that the -200 was better for the shorter haul flights. The few months I flew on the whale out of Anchorage I don't remember ever having a leg over 8 hours. The planes almost always filled up vs maxed out for weight, so all pallet positions were full and we flew fairly light on gas.

I only flew freight for about 6 months, but I was impressed with the operation.

Jim, still on furlough but only 34 line numbers from recall
 
Last edited:

Latest resources

Back
Top