This website uses cookies. By using and further navigating this website, you accept this.
Dismiss
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from FlightAware.com. We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.
Dismiss
Back to Squawk list
  • 46

UPS doubles future 747-8F fleet with new order for 14

Submitted
UPS Airlines has ordered 14 more Boeing 747-8Fs to double its future fleet of the re-engined jumbo freighter and add vital months, perhaps even years, to the type's backlog. The cargo airline has also ordered four more 767 freighters, it disclosed in separate announcements on Twitter today. The orders were revealed as UPS released annual earnings showing strong growth in 2017 and expectations of higher demand this year. (www.flightglobal.com) More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


744pnf
744pnf 3
hardworker7 The NWA freighters were -200's and pretty well worn out. They were going to order 747-400F but I don't know what happened.
hardworker7
hardworker7 2
LH and CLX seem well positioned to take advantage of the sky-rocketing cargo rates in Europe as of late. These are 747-8 operators. Wonder if Delta regrets dismantling the cargo fleet they inherited from NWA?
hardworker7
hardworker7 2
744pnf; Absolutely. They were relics. The recently retired -400s could have been converted as the -200s were prior to that merger.
Cansojr
Cansojr -8
It made me very sad when the last commercial aviation 747 was delivered to the bone yard. But the "Queen" may not have been preserved in numbers but the beautiful form of the 747-800 will be seen very shortly when these aircraft are completed. I sure hope they have success with this model. Boeing builds models of existing aircraft while Bombardier and Airbus are designing and manufacturing new aircraft new from ideas based on "Paper" Boeing waited too long and are now suffering from not keeping an eye on the market design and trends of the industry. Boeing has something severely wrong between the design and manufacturing management teams.
Novej
Jevon Munsanto 7
(Sigh)....Ok a few things. First question, what existing model was the 787 based on? Secondly, present a valid argument that though they share VASTLY similar design philosophies, the A350 is drastically different and therefore more than just an improved 787 with a larger cabin. Don't forget the 787 was designed and flew first in your argument. See your comment here fails to take into account quite a few things. For instance Boeing Correctly predicted the market would not support aircraft of the A380 and 747-8 (not 800)....and they did this before the A380 ever flew. See Airbus once believed that they would be able to make an even larger version of the A380 (the -900) Instead now it and Boeing have had to give some pretty steep discounts just to keep the lines alive...However, Boeing who is "suffering from not keeping an eye on the market design" knew that there were two very specific, important (and profitable) markets the 747 would always own Airbus in....Cargo carrying and Air Force One.... Both still wanted the 747, just a higher performing, yet more efficient version...Hence the 747-8 (not 800) ;0) I am a fan of both Manufactures I just get so sick of these A vs B threads......
tyketto
Brad Littlejohn -1
For the record, USAF actually looked at using the A380 to replace the B742s that the AF1/AF2 fleet currently are. In fact, the USAF even went as far as to select the B748 to replace it; however, that entire project was cancelled, so right now, there is no replacement for AF1/AF2. In fact, there have only been the -F variants of the B748 ordered, outside the small passenger order by the only customer ordering it, Lufthansa. Right now, there is no replacement for AF1/AF2, which is why USAF has been scrounging in boneyards for replacement parts.

Those two in USAF's fleets are on borrowed time, with no replacement in sight.
dogsaysmoo
John W 8
For the record: Lufthansa is not the only customer for the 747-8 in the passenger configuration. Air China and Korean Air are flying it too. There's a handful in private use as well. As for the Air Force One project, the Air Force purchased 2 already-built 748s in August to be converted for use as presidential aircraft, and the contract to design the presidential upgrades was awarded to Boeing in September.
jbsimms
James Simms 3
Don't forget British Airways spent the $$$$ to refurbish their best 747's to continue in service for many more years
Colonelron
Ltc Ron Butts 3
They are being replaced with B747-800 acft built for a now defunct Russian carrier. Thanks to the end user they will be much cheaper
Novej
Jevon Munsanto 5
John W is correct. The 747-8 was always destined to be the nexr AF1. The US Congress would have it no other way. They and President Trump just didn't want to pay for two built from the ground up birds. This is why the two prior built birds were selected instead. This may also be the cancellation your referring to. What's ironic is these birds were originally going to Russia lol! After the corrupt selection of the 767 (after the A330 had already been) for the KC10/135 replacement, it was clear to Airbus that the A380 would only be looked at as a formality instead of truly evaluated for the role.

Lastly like I said in my original post Boeing knew the F variant would still live on and that the pax variant was on its last days before it even flew....but they needed the Fs to sell and they needed to secure AF1 in order to justify the 747-8.
TimeRanger
Randy Shereda 4
Jevon, The entire 747 line escaped death when UPS ordered their first 14 -8Fs. Boeing had already notified the SEC that they were ending production of the 747. They had no orders for them until UPS provided a life-line in 2016
Novej
Jevon Munsanto 2
Absolutely no argument there. My comment was simply stating why Boeing INITIALLY went ahead with development of the 747-8 despite their own market analysis showing that it wouldn't be viable! I think they were expecting more cargo carriers to jump on it especially when it hit that 1 million pound MTOW!
TimeRanger
Randy Shereda 2
I think that everybody is forgetting that right around the time the -8 was introduced, the global economy started to tank .... all carriers - pax and cargo - found fewer travelers and goods to be transported on routes that would make the 747s profitable for them. There is no way that Boeing could have forseen the downturn in the economy while the plane was in the design/development stages. Few carriers simply didn't have either the cash, nor the 'nads to take the risk, to place firm orders when the -8 was ready.
Novej
Jevon Munsanto 2
TRUTH. However, Boeing knew from the very beginning the 747 (even the -8) was on its way out....even if the economy would have stayed the way it was, the airlines were truly starting to realize the profitability margins favored twins over quads. Other than the carriers tasked with heavy lifting, the 8 really is too much of a niche model for most! I personally love it. I just wish they would have given it a full fbw system LOL! (for no other reason but its cool hahaha)
TimeRanger
Randy Shereda 2
Heavy Lifting - For UPS, they Rarely load to MTOW, but they are filling the planes to capacity, volume wise. That is why they initially ordered 10 of the 380s - but after countless delays from Airbus .. they cancelled the order and went with the 747-400 .... It was less painfull for them too as they did not have to invest in a totally new type - the Extensive training of crews, maintenance, parts, ground, etc etc - Millions of $ before the first delivery ever takes place. Even before the arrival of their first -400, there were months of training and preparations .. most of which have to be OKd by the FAA
Novej
Jevon Munsanto 2
Like I said they gave some steeep discounts!
Colonelron
Ltc Ron Butts 0
There was no corrupt selection the 767 was a proven model and the 330 as most Airbuses have proven to be problems
Novej
Jevon Munsanto 5
Actually the Air Force originally gave the contract to Airbus for the A330. Congress denied because the pane wasn't built in the US by US workers with US materials. Airbus countered by saying they would build it at their plant in Alabama and give Northrop Grumman the contract to design test and install the boom and other refueling systems. Congress still said NO..overturned the Air Forces decision and GAVE the contract to Boeing for the 767 variant. How is that not corrupt!?
lartac
Leon Artac -1
Congress can tell the military to stop or start. They fund the military. Yes, they can do this and have done it in the past. Do you know anything about how the government works?????
TimeRanger
Randy Shereda 3
Leon, slight correction to your post --- The TAXPAYERS fund the military .. congress just hands out OUR money.
lartac
Leon Artac -1
Agree with LTC Ron. The A330 has back up lights just like French Tanks. Who wants a plane with back up lights. Get real!
Novej
Jevon Munsanto 5
Again stop with this ignorant A vs B BS on here. The Air Force chose the A330 as their tanker replacement. In my personal opinion they made the right choice. However, Congress wasn't hearing it. Read my post on LTC Ron's comment.
flypilot12
flypilot12 -1
I read the reports when they came out and the reasoning for the selection and the resultant overturn. The A330 may have had a larger load carrying capability but the 767 is smaller and able to operate out of more runways around the world than the A330, this is fact, and that ability is what Congress looked at when making it's decision and to have the plane be able to be where the fighters are is a good thing. Congress has the power and the authority to change military procurement as they see fit.The only one I see using the A vs B argument in this is you. Just as with the AF saying they could replace the A-10 with the F-35, Congress said, BS, keep it flying till there is a true replacement for it. Also let's keep in mind that a lot of the European militaries have, as of late, opted for aircraft built locally, and there is nothing wrong with that, nor the fact that the US Congress, thinks that the US AIR FORCE should operate US built airplanes.
Novej
Jevon Munsanto 0
You really should go back and read all my comments. I'm really confused how you think Im the one here using the A vs B argument. I'm guessing 90 percent of this thought is probably based on a statement I prefaced with the words "In my opinion..." Either way, Let me make it clear I am a fan of both manufactures and in this case (the tankers) I think there was a win win scenario had either product been selected........However....

First of all nice try...you carefully included many facts that help boost your argument, but you did so while using a slight of hand to get around the ultimate point I've been saying all along. Yes the reports highlight all the performance impacts the 767 brings to the table. And they carefully craft a tale of how the 767 NOT the A330 was always the clear winner. However, and you know this because you read them, they do not provide clear justification as to why the re-evalutaion was conducted in the first place. The airbus had all the "short falls" the first time around when it was selected as it did (and were highlighted) the second time around. The reports don't call attention to the people who lost their jobs (literally) over the first decision and the outrage and lobbying efforts that were immediately enacted to warrant the re-eval (nothing new there this happens anytime a major coorporation with Senators on the payroll don't get their way LOL)....That was a fallacy by the way (wink). Furthermore its clear to me that you fail to see that this was not only a A vs B competition but that it was really a NG vs B one too. Or maybe its purely coincidence that once the Obama administration ran NG away from the competition and EADS had to go it alone, it was a pretty easy win for Boeing the second time around (another fallacy lol).

Coptermechanic I like you, so I'm going to give you the points in your argument that you should have included that I really can't argue. First and foremost the cheapest product won fair and square. Many assumed (including Boeing themselves) that Airbus would use the same subsidies it did for its airliners to help discount the tanker. In a strange twist of events they chose not to. Personally I think its because they planned to use the profits from the Tanker deal to fund the A350 and NEO variants they were working on simultaneously....but THATS JUST MY OPINION! Furthermore, and this is probably the most important point of them all.....the 76 did not require the Air Force to change their wartime refueling model the way the 330 did (you should read up on this it was actually quite innovative what EADS/NG proposed.) In fact you should have brought up that it was CONGRESS who had instructed the Air Force to do this in the first place in order to keep the A330 in the competition from the start.....(remember what I said about NG vs B and the lobbying?) You should have brought up with all my talk about corruption and the A330...even the Pegasus had corruption associated with it back when it was originally selected in the early 2000s by the Air Force. Lastly and it was a valid point brought up in the reports, but it was carefully crafted in how it was worded....AF 447 had a direct impact on this decision.....Don't believe me? Remember the part in the report about the 767 having "manual control reversion and unrestricted flight envelope characteristics"??? Why else would that suddenly be included?

Like I said I like both manufactures and I love both products (in fact I like the 767 better than the A330 as an airliner) However I also felt the A330 was a better choice here. I knew the 767 bested it in pretty much every arena. However, my faith was always in this fact, as enthusiasts we had been hearing for years the A330 NEOs were coming. the KC67 is based on the proven but older 767-200ER. As good as it is now, I was not convinced that it could compete with A NEO version of the MRTT....That should lead to the final point of your argument, Airbus has never actually said the MRTT would even get the NEO right? (shrug) Hey nobody's perfect LOL CHEERS!!

(Now back on topic....so how about those UPS 747s sorry I got us so far off topic LOL)
teddhope
Tedd Hope 2
There was never a "747-800" - it's always been the 747-8, often referred to as the Dash Eight. And Boeing is making tons of money. Developing/producing prototypes of new models is an enormous cash drain, ROI on initial projects a long (long) time coming. Boeing reacts, strikes, innovates when the moment and the model are right, or at least they have so far. Many a mega firm would enjoy "suffering" as they now do.
trickster356
Michael Hoare 2
What is the difference between the 747-800 & the 747-8? same plane.
TimeRanger
Randy Shereda 2
Except that the "800" designation was never actually used. Its always been the "-8"
lartac
Leon Artac 0
Big deal!
TimeRanger
Randy Shereda 1
Cansojr ... The last Domestic pax 747s are retired. However, the 747 is sill in passenger use with many other airlines ... British Airways and Virgin Atlantic come to mind. Oh, Las Vegas Sands corporation actually owns 2 (1 may have been sold) 747SPs, but they are registered off-shore
Cansojr
Cansojr -3
Gee I'm sorry.
Cansojr
Cansojr -3
Gee all I did wrong is use the incorrect number and say that this was an amazing design being retired as Pax carriers. Sure they will be upgraded and modified this comment was a compliment on this designs longevity and beauty. Unfortunately you feel it is important too purposefully slag my comments about the beauty of its form. You people aren't even debating form and format and the long-term success of this design. What on earth is wrong with my compliment of the form of this beautiful aircraft. You are in a brainless completion to vote out those you don't like for whatever illogical reason. 95% haven't got a clue as to the inner workings of airline. This isn't a contest for the most thumbs-up on a particular string. 90% of the comments on Flighraware are irrelevant to any form of aviation. This was an interesting site until The "wannabes" took over voting out the most accurate information based on GOOGLE SCHOLAR. Yeah, these guys are "really bright". GOOD LUCK!
Novej
Jevon Munsanto 3
Your comment is what originally caught my attention......

"Boeing builds models of existing aircraft while Bombardier and Airbus are designing and manufacturing new aircraft new from ideas based on "Paper" Boeing waited too long and are now suffering from not keeping an eye on the market design and trends of the industry. Boeing has something severely wrong between the design and manufacturing management teams."

Hence the original argument I posted to you below. If you pay attention to all the comments here, you will see whats going on is exactly what I was trying to avoid by correcting you...this A vs B BS. These are two great companies making great (but very similar) products I just don't know why people feel they need to pit one against the other. In other words why do we have all these Airbus sucks because of this or Boeing sucks because of this......? Its pretty easy to see who knows what they are talking about and who doesn't though so don't let it bother you LOL!
Cansojr
Cansojr -1
Jevon, you aside from a couple other professional aviators sound like the voice of competence. I just wish it was like this in every other situation. GOOD LUCK
lartac
Leon Artac 0
Totally agree with Cansojr about his comments regarding the brain less ones that write on this blog. If you don't use the correct pronoun or verb or whatever, they just crap on you. They are the ones that are covering up their ignorance with petty BS. I find that most blogs attract the want a bees. I won't give up making them look foolish!!
Cansojr
Cansojr -5
This crap started because you people don't know how to have civil informed discussions. GOOD LUCK

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

Novej
Jevon Munsanto 5
Calm down Cansojr...stop getting so defensive over the delivery and concentrate on the message. You made a generalization that wasn't really supported in fact We jumped on you because whether you meant to or not you were feeding directly into the ignorance of the A (Airbus) vs B (Boeing) crowd.....I think we can all agree there really is no need for that here. Now with that being said don't let others opinions drive you away. AND certainly don't resort to insults... You are free to post whatever you want. We all share a love for aviation and should be allowed to share our opinions in an open forum....however when you do that, you must always be ready for someone to challenge. And at the end of the day you'll gain more respect with saying "Sorry I was wrong thank you for the correction." We're all friends here!
Cansojr
Cansojr -3
You are correct Jevon however there is a group manipulating the thumbs up BS or Thumbs down. These clowns are manipulating their effects.
I am done with this nonsense. I suspect that less than 5-10 people participating are real pilots. I should know better. GOOD LUCK!
TimeRanger
Randy Shereda 3
Cansojr ... What does a person being a pilot have to do with anything? I was always under the impression that this forum was pretty much for aviation enthusiasts - licensed or not?
Cansojr
Cansojr -1
It is, however my experience has been completely has been very negative. I appreciate enthusiasts and encourage them to fly or glide. Some are just down to earth aviation enthusiasts who we really need for military aircraft acquisition with civilian in-put. Pilots tend to have a different perspective rather than a passenger when it comes to flying that's just pretty much what a lot of my buddies think. It's not better, its just different without any malicious intent. Sometimes a lot of really stupid things are said in here and has no place in the forum, ie;"snitches get stitches". What on earth does that have to do with professional aviators. Or haggling over a mistake over a number. Or Joining forces no matter what I have said and vote me out. So, I'm pulling the pins I'm outta here GOOD LUCK! PLEASE STOP SENDING SQUAWKS AS I AM BLOCKING THIS SITE.
TimeRanger
Randy Shereda 3
Cansojr - is it so hard to just ignore the comments that you consider to be stupid? There are trolls everywhere - stop feeding them and your anger will subside.
Cansojr
Cansojr -5
You are the first I've met. I'm retired 63, 12k+ hours from 172' to DC-10s. Even a spell of cropdusting with a Pezetel 1000 hp radial engine that purred like a dream. Huge wingspan and rugged protection fot the pilot. You always had power not like the new machines with the P&W 75o or 850 shaft horse power. Great for fighting small hard to get to fires.
That's a part-time summer job for old farts. My old man called me CANSO Jr because he flew them for almost four years during the war. The U-805 surrendered to him. Know that was a pilots pilot. THX JEVON
Novej
Jevon Munsanto 2
I don't care what anybody says cropdusters are some of the best "stick and rudder" men in the sky!

Login

Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!