flown-the-coop said:

---

SupermachJM said:

---

777 is more efficient but the cargo carriers are still operating MD-11s because they're able to carry more than a 767 or airbus. At one point FedEx thought they would replace them domestically with 767s 1:1 but that was a largely failed experiment, and they ended up having to supplement those routes with a 757 to pick up the slack. As far as the 777 goes, 15 years ago MD-11 had almost all of FedEx's international routes. Now they've lost those to the 777 and MD-11 has been limited largely to AK, HI, and the lower 48 transcon with a few other PacRim routes. They've been slowly phasing them out in favor of the more efficient 2-engine airframes but it's still cheaper to operate an MD-11 that's owned at a higher operating cost than to finance a new 777 outright.

---

How does the 747F factor in to the phase out of the MD-11s? I know (or at least think) UPS still uses them though I think FedEx long phased them out.

Seems like it would be a solid replacement of the MD-11 particularly on the routes you mentioning the MD-11 is / was flying.

---

Correct, FedEx doesn't have any 747s.

UPS has 13 747-400F/BCFs, and 30 747-8Fs, the latter are some of the last 747s ever built. They will be in service for a long time as they fill a segment that noting else really can. Airbus never built a A380F nor is it suitable for cargo conversion.

Jetpilot86 flies the 747 for UPS according to one of his posts on this thread.

And if he doesn't mind answering, is it the -400 or -8?

Yeah I'll let Jetpilot86 chime in but as Rapier said FedEx doesn't have any 747s. Fred Smith didn't like the idea that the second floor of the 747 was dead space since the FedEx cargo 'cans' couldn't fit up there. Back in the day they preferred to get DC-10s and MD-11s from the airlines and convert them to freighters as they felt it was more cost effective than shelling out for the 747s.

It also had to do with ramp space, both in Memphis and other outstations. You have to remember that the wingspan of a 747 is greater than an MD-11, so they could park more planes next to each other.
They even decided not to add winglets to the tips of wings as it took up too much ramp space. It ended up being more cost effective to burn more fuel if it meant not paying for as much ramp space or being able to fit an extra plane into the same footprint.

Common type rating for the 747-400 and -8, although I have no idea how the crews are actually scheduled.

The 747, like the MD-11 is no longer today (and never will be again) in production and in no way is a real substitute for the routes UPS flies the MD-11 (and 5X has zero interest in acquiring or leasing the type). It's an entirely different category of cargo aircraft/capability/cost.

From an operational perspective the reliance/revenue from USPS shipments at UPS has been in decline for years and will not decrease, further lessening the need for the MD-11 fleet there. Fedex already has the 77F's scheduled for delivery to replace them in 2026 and 2027.

A shortage of lift if the grounding is extended will in some ways work to both's advantage, allowing them to lower senior pilot/crew costs and also raise prices due to the shortage, but only marginally really. 50 WB aircraft has an impact, but it's not earth shattering in the big picture.

Rapier108 said:

---

UPS has 13 747-400F/BCFs, and 30 747-8Fs, the latter are some of the last 747s ever built. They will be in service for a long time as they fill a segment that noting else really can. Airbus never built a A380F nor is it suitable for cargo conversion.

Jetpilot86 flies the 747 for UPS according to one of his posts on this thread.

And if he doesn't mind answering, is it the -400 or -8?

---

I believe he flies the -8F but, here's a great picture of both:

A UPS 747-400 and 747-8 parked in Cologne. https://t.co/LWAWO9YcC9 © Markus Altmann pic.twitter.com/zMNHDboFrq

— JetPhotos (@JetPhotos) January 2, 2021

It will definitely be advantageous. FedEx crews have been in 4A2C for months and only working ~65 hours each month. Fewer aircraft will mean that the other airframes will get more hours to compensate. There's a rumor that FedEx will release a new pilot bid sometime around Thanksgiving and try to reduce the MD-11 pilot force by around 20%.
It will be interesting to see how they decide to continue to compensate the schedules based on the freight load differences. The 777 is bigger than the MD-11, so will they fly them less full or will they schedule extra 767s to pick up the slack?

SupermachJM said:

---

Yeah I'll let Jetpilot86 chime in but as Rapier said FedEx doesn't have any 747s. Fred Smith didn't like the idea that the second floor of the 747 was dead space since the FedEx cargo 'cans' couldn't fit up there. Back in the day they preferred to get DC-10s and MD-11s from the airlines and convert them to freighters as they felt it was more cost effective than shelling out for the 747s.

It also had to do with ramp space, both in Memphis and other outstations. You have to remember that the wingspan of a 747 is greater than an MD-11, so they could park more planes next to each other.
They even decided not to add winglets to the tips of wings as it took up too much ramp space. It ended up being more cost effective to burn more fuel if it meant not paying for as much ramp space or being able to fit an extra plane into the same footprint.

---

This is correct

Rapier108 said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

SupermachJM said:

---

777 is more efficient but the cargo carriers are still operating MD-11s because they're able to carry more than a 767 or airbus. At one point FedEx thought they would replace them domestically with 767s 1:1 but that was a largely failed experiment, and they ended up having to supplement those routes with a 757 to pick up the slack. As far as the 777 goes, 15 years ago MD-11 had almost all of FedEx's international routes. Now they've lost those to the 777 and MD-11 has been limited largely to AK, HI, and the lower 48 transcon with a few other PacRim routes. They've been slowly phasing them out in favor of the more efficient 2-engine airframes but it's still cheaper to operate an MD-11 that's owned at a higher operating cost than to finance a new 777 outright.

---

How does the 747F factor in to the phase out of the MD-11s? I know (or at least think) UPS still uses them though I think FedEx long phased them out.

Seems like it would be a solid replacement of the MD-11 particularly on the routes you mentioning the MD-11 is / was flying.

---

Correct, FedEx doesn't have any 747s.

UPS has 13 747-400F/BCFs, and 30 747-8Fs, the latter are some of the last 747s ever built. They will be in service for a long time as they fill a segment that noting else really can. Airbus never built a A380F nor is it suitable for cargo conversion.

Jetpilot86 flies the 747 for UPS according to one of his posts on this thread.

And if he doesn't mind answering, is it the -400 or -8?

---

They are a common type like the 757/767

FedEx had Classic 747's, different type rating.

As it stands now the SDF UPS ramp is not set up to handle the wingspans of either the 777F or the A350F, the closest replacements. As a result, UPS has been dragging out the replacement decision for the MD as long as possible. We thought they were going to get more -8F's before the line closed for good, they didn't, nor did they do so when they were offered the last of the -400F's.

akaggie05 said:

---

Common type rating for the 747-400 and -8, although I have no idea how the crews are actually scheduled.

---

I change between them like people change socks.

Well really, the -400's are mostly domesticated, or run to Cologne and back or Anchorage and back with an odd Honolulu and back. They try to run -8's everywhere else in the world for continuity.

SupermachJM said:

---

It will definitely be advantageous. FedEx crews have been in 4A2C for months and only working ~65 hours each month. Fewer aircraft will mean that the other airframes will get more hours to compensate. There's a rumor that FedEx will release a new pilot bid sometime around Thanksgiving and try to reduce the MD-11 pilot force by around 20%.
It will be interesting to see how they decide to continue to compensate the schedules based on the freight load differences. The 777 is bigger than the MD-11, so will they fly them less full or will they schedule extra 767s to pick up the slack?

---

If UPS ever gets a version of 4A2C, and they want it, we would always happen to be in it.

Might have to wait for the 787F, if Boeing will ever get off their butts and build the thing, unless the 777-8F with its folding wings would work.

Rapier108 said:

---

Might have to wait for the 787F, if Boeing will ever get off their butts and build the thing, unless the 777-8F with its folding wings would work.

---

The first 777-8F should roll off the assembly line in about a year. It will go to Cargolux after certification testing.

Rapier108 said:

---

Might have to wait for the 787F, if Boeing will ever get off their butts and build the thing, unless the 777-8F with its folding wings would work.

---

The 787-F is effectively the replacement for the 767 when it noises out most places outside the US in 2027. The closest replacement for the MD is the 777. The A350 won't carry as much, as far as the 777.

With any viable direct replacements not available soon, my guess is that UPS will push to keep the MD flying as long as possible.

I took a couple of videos over 4th of July.





Pretty funny - as I'm watching this I'm thinking... Jesus old man, turn the camera landscape... come on!

The 787F is supposedly (per Scott Hamilton) in the pipeline at Boeing for 2030. Not sure I buy that timeline but it allows a nice gap of a few years if so for planning purposes, between the last 767F delivery (in 2027 I think) and the next generation. Boeing is building a second line to double production capacity on the 787 in Charleston, and with over 1,000 in the backlog it is easy to see why that makes sense to them.

The 777 after-market conversion programs will have to fill the gap in the meantime as needs arise, and carriers will just have to adjust operations in 2027-2030-ish. A350F is a wildcard but I don't see UPS or Fedex ordering it.

Goose98 said:

---

A350F is a wildcard but I don't see UPS or Fedex ordering it.

---

A former UPS Airlines president is some kind of muckity muck at Airbus now. I suspect he is there for 1 reason.

All my other guesses, perhaps educated, are based upon my experiences at UPS.

titan said:

---

Hmmm. Given how long they have been flying, wonder if the investigation is also finding that it may be an age-related deterioration for these variants. That the risk is greater after this period of time despite apparently not being often to date.

---

I wonder why this is impacting the Tri-jets more so than any other variant? Almost every plane flying has wing pylon mounted engines. Many of them designed around the same time as the DC-10 and MD-11.

My thought would be the need for the #2 engine to take off. If they hadn't lost that tail mounted engine they likely would have been fine. 2-engine aircraft should be able to take off on one engine, and I'd imagine the likelihood of losing a second engine due to debris from failure of the first is greatly reduced when it's not tail mounted.

SupermachJM said:

---

My thought would be the need for the #2 engine to take off. If they hadn't lost that tail mounted engine they likely would have been fine. 2-engine aircraft should be able to take off on one engine, and I'd imagine the likelihood of losing a second engine due to debris from failure of the first is greatly reduced when it's not tail mounted.

---

It would be a function of how it came off. In the AA crash decades ago, when the pylon tore off it caused the Leading Edge Flaps to retract which caused the roll leading to its crash. If the engine just falls off, as designed for a catastrophic engine problem, then things like fuel and hydraulics are more manageable.

On 2976, you were low speed with extra thrust and lift from the right side working against the crew. If the same thing happened to the Leading Edge Flaps as well, having #2 would probably not matter if they were not moving fast enough to quickly get the LEF's up on the other side as well.

SupermachJM said:

---

My thought would be the need for the #2 engine to take off. If they hadn't lost that tail mounted engine they likely would have been fine. 2-engine aircraft should be able to take off on one engine, and I'd imagine the likelihood of losing a second engine due to debris from failure of the first is greatly reduced when it's not tail mounted.

---

I meant the DC-10 and MD-11 being grounded for some potential issue with the pylon attachment to the wing/engine.

AD from the AA191 investigation should have remedied the slat retraction issue in the event of a loss of hydraulics

https://web.archive.org/web/20161204215429/http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.nsf/0/0664E2B3BEE25C0E862569F200697162?OpenDocument

You may be right, and I could see UPS ordering some A350F's too if for no other reason than to apply pressure to Boeing but I really don't know. It looks/sounds like they have/will have a competent freighter to compete with, finally. I really don't know how UPS plans for their fleet to change/adapt over the next 10 years, and the 767F fleet I think is still very young despite the age of the model overall. It all comes down to commercial terms/conditions and delivery dates for outfits that size, but I doubt they do anything like a 'small' subfleet. Also has to deal with pilot union negotiations etc.

Do airports have cameras pointed at runways capturing planes as they take off and land? Not just pointed in the general direction of the runway, but zoomed in and tracking. That seems to be what happened here, and I think an excellent tool to help with investigations in the case of some sort of incident.

SupermachJM said:

---

My thought would be the need for the #2 engine to take off. If they hadn't lost that tail mounted engine they likely would have been fine. 2-engine aircraft should be able to take off on one engine, and I'd imagine the likelihood of losing a second engine due to debris from failure of the first is greatly reduced when it's not tail mounted.

---

100% this. A 2 engine aircraft can absolutely take off, fly, and land on one engine. They're designed for this and ETOPS regulations even specify how far they can fly on one engine.

N8Dawg05 said:

---

NTSB prelim report is out with very good pictures from inside the airport. From the pictures, looks like they were rotating when the engine / pylon separated from the wing flipping up over the top of the wing / aircraft. It would appear to match well what Juan Browne published in one of his update videos that the pylon may have failed in the highest experienced load -> takeoff rotation.

NTSB issues the preliminary report for its ongoing investigation of the Nov. 4 crash of a UPS Boeing MD-11F airplane in Louisville, Kentucky. Download the report PDF: https://t.co/WS0Q629CUz pic.twitter.com/7pORlou2av

— NTSB Newsroom (@NTSB_Newsroom) November 20, 2025

---

Picture #6 shows the compressor stall likely from debris from #1, the fire ring by the wingtip. What chance they had at recovering probably ended there.

Right at rotation. Pretty good view of what appears to be fire coming out of the tail engine as well. Yikes.

Looks exactly like how the engine came off AA191.

Also, in the last image, you can see the #2 engine stall.

Even if it hadn't, I don't think they had a chance given the size of the fire on the wing.

So it was the #2 engine on the tail that also stalled, not number 3?

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

So it was the #2 engine on the tail that also stalled, not number 3?

---

#2 is the tail mounted engine. So yes.

Interesting. There was spirited debate about whether it was 2 or 3 but I guess we have the answer.

GAC06 said:

---

Right at rotation. Pretty good view of what appears to be fire coming out of the tail engine as well. Yikes.

---

The most stress on everything on a wing is at the moment the main gear leaves the ground, probably until initial thrust reduction at around 1000-1500'