Why are Boeing 747-400s not used as much as they used to be for trans-Atlantic air travel?

Question

I notice that Boeing 747-400's are being used less on certain trans-Atlantic, and some trans-Pacific routes...nowadays it seems to be more of a mix of twin-engine aircraft, MD-11s and some 747-400s on the transatlantic runs.. they even use twin-engine jets like the 777 on some long-haul trans-pacific routes...what are some of the reasons for this?

To Alibi...there's plans for a new 747, the 747-8 which is going to be the newest in a long line of very popular Boeing jets.

I want to fly someday on both the 747-400 and the 777..I think the 'Triple-Seven' is quite an achievement for Boeing.

Answer 1

kind of like what calnickel said, but let me put it another way. Instead of flying a higher number at once, we're now flying smarter. Since we've entered the information age, computers are able to use really advanced statistics and simulation to take data we already know about where people go, and try a bazillion combinations of flights and cities (also considering ticket price) to determine the most efficient way to do it. Before it ways always flying to a hub like JFK, crossing the atlantic by TWA or pan-am, arriving at another hub, and flying to your destination. Now they're able to come up with ways to eliminate more of the layovers and point people directly to where they need to be. I'm going out on a limb here but I think that's why those two airlines are out of business now.

For instance, if 10% of the people who fly from N. America to Europe are going to Scotland, it makes more sense to have a 777 or 767ER (I could be wrong on that plane btw) make the trip directly to Scotland twice a week, than it is to just load all the Scotland-bound people with the France-bound people with the Germany-bound people on a daily 747 to london, and have them all get on a second flight. It's better and more efficient to send them straight where they need to go. I think he's wrong on ETOPS though, it's just an abbreviation for Engines Turning Or Passengers Swimming!

The type of math and simulation needed to figure out these routes didn't exist back in the 60's when the 747 was being developed. This one reason why many people think airbus is doing the wrong thing with the A380, since bigger isn't necessarily better. 747s are still enormously popular for freight service and will alwyas be though.

An interesting aside is that apparently 747s are very popular in japan for short range flights to various islands, where they pack in around 500 people inside for a short time.

Answer 2

It's a combination of two factors: cost and load factor

Schedule planners compute a figure called CASM - Cost per available seat mile. Like it sounds, CASM is the cost to fly one seat one mile. This is a comparison that's easily transferrable to any aircraft type in the fleet. Given a choice, an airline will always try to operate at the lowest CASM, which means flying newer, cost-efficient aircraft.

But that's not the whole story. They also have to consider the load factor, or # of seats occupied vs. # of seats available. Let's say the demand for travel between City A and City B is 275 seats per day. It doesn't make sense to put a 400-seat 747 on this route if a 290-seat 777 will meet the demand. However, if the demand is 375 seats per day, it makes sense to use the 747 rather than running 2 777's half full. The demand changes with the seasons, too, which is why an airline might run a 767 during the winter months to Europe but upgage to a 777 during the summer months.

Answer 3

Twin engined airliners are cheaper to operate. Before ETOPS (Extended-range Twin-engine Operational Performance Standards), a three or four engined airliner was required to fly the Atlantic or the Pacific. Early ETOPS aircraft like the 767 and 757 had too low of a passenger capacity to service the Atlantic for most airlines, but with the A330 and the 777, that has changed.

ETOPS is based on how far (in minutes) an aircraft can be away from a diversionary field in case of engine failure. As aircraft engines have gotten more reliable, the time has increased. So now there is virtually no routes that cannot be served by cheaper twin engined aircraft.

Answer 4

The answer is pretty simple. Even if 4 engines seem safer, it also means twice as many systems that can go wrong as to a twin.
Also keep in mind that these newer aircraft like the 767 and the 777 are more modernized and much more cost efficient.

Answer 5

ETOPS allowed boeing 777 a twin Engine Plane to fly 12 hours. That opened the gate for trans atlantic and San Francisco to Tokyo flights. Mostly Twin engine over the pacific is a little more dangerious but if the plane can fly it on one engine FAA will allow it.

Answer 6

Well i think that passenger wise, you can do a heck of a lot more flights with smaller aircraft and that means more of the $$$ stuff.

The 747 is being used mostly anymore as cargo because they don't have to have so may flights to get stuff shipped across.

Answer 7

Its probebly more expensive to use than say an 767 or 330. Plus its bigger. Johan

Answer 8

They're getting old and are being removed from service. Also, bigger and better planes mean more passengers=more $$$

Answer 9

there are cheaper aircraft for this relatively short route