End of an Era?

I don’t understand the economics of scrapping tooling. Why not put them in storage?

 

Oh ! We can't do that! It will cost money to let all that metal just sit there. We must melt it down quickly to regain a bit of profit from it. Who cares about possible reactivation. It's un-American to entertain any tradition or reuse of something.

 

Grumman and Lockheed both put tools in storage and were thus able to build more C-2s and C-5s years after the original production ended.

 

What other reason would they have?

 

Another question from the article. Are any of the early, 50 year olds still in service?

 

Genuinely curious, what political end is achieved by killing the 747?

 

Maybe the business was told to expect _ # of 747 orders over time and the business then made investments in tooling, space, employees and the orders never came. So then when they shut the business down, why keep tools around to potentially help Boeing in the future if you feel they let your business die?

 

I get that but to me that is an economic decision, not political.

 

I remember seeing tools sitting on the apron in front of some of the assy buildings in Renton. They were scrapped to make space for sub assemblies that were waiting to be put on the line.

 

The 747's time has come and gone. No sense in saving the tooling from a 50+ year old design.

 

Can you offer an alternative to what's stated in the article?

Frederic Horst, managing director of Cargo Facts Consulting, said that an end to the production of the 747 is “a worry” for the outsized cargo business. “While we have factored an end to the production of the 747-8F into our 20-year freighter forecast, there is no aircraft that offers the same capabilities,” he said. “Over the next 20 years the nose door equipped fleet will decline from about 240 aircraft today to just over 130."​

 

Does FedEx, the world's largest cargo carrier, use the 747? No. There's a reason for that. The 777 is by far a better plane for carrying large amounts of freight long distances. For outsized cargo that needs a larger aircraft, there will be plenty of 747's flying for the next 30-50 years. No need to fret.

 

Not the point. UPS and FedEx both have size limitations on what they will move. The front doors on the 747F allow it to swallow over-size loads, much like the rear doors on a C-5/C-17 (with high wings and tails) allow them to do the same thing. Other than the 747F, the option would be something like a version of the Guppy or whatever they call them now after the 747F fleet times out.

 

Yeah, I think he missed the the second half of the post regarding "nose door equipped".


Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I suppose that it would be possible in the future to re-engine the -400F's with the -8F's engines, if the eventual fuel savings would be greater than the cost of the upgrade.

 

>> I suppose that it would be possible in the future to re-engine the -400F's with the -8F's engines, if the eventual fuel savings would be greater than the cost of the upgrade.

I can't think of one jet airliner that has had existing airframes re-engined. Paperwork alone would be enough to kill such a program.

 

Maybe not an airliner, but the KC-135s have gone through engine upgrades. They paid for themselves pretty quickly.

 

Doesn't the 737 max fit that description? Or has the airframe been modified?

 

Yes it's been modified. Longer fuselage, thicker fuselage skin, landing gear support structures are different, etc.