Why Didn't They Hijack 747s??

If you look up a flight in the OFFICIAL AIRLINE GUIDE (OAG), the industry
"bible" will find the type of aircraft normally flown on that route. Airlines
will keep the same type of aircraft on that route for reasons of crew
certification and maintanence. Hijackers would have known what type
of aircraft was used on that flight. Becuase of the commonality of the
757/767 types, training on one would translate to the other type .

I would agree that are a number of ignorant replies to this post.

1. They only fly 747 domestically on chartered flights. It had to be a domestic flight because of the increased security on international flights.
They choose the one of the largest aircraft used for domestic flights, Boeing 767. This is in itself a large aircraft. They made sure it was fully fueled by choosing long flights to the west coast. The amount of fuel and shear size did not require a larger aircraft as we can see from the results.

2. They only trained on two engine aircraft, but this is a mute point since they only had 2 engine aircraft to choose from. (I.E. A-340, 747 or, DC-8 or 707 were not available to do their dirty work with)

reply to post by snoopy


Generally the type of plane is the same, however, there can be times when they will change. If they have a maintenance problem, or they book higher than planned for that flight, they'll change. Or if they are going to swap planes at another destination, instead of flying an empty in, they'll swap your flight onto another plane. For example, if the flight from Honolulu to Tokyo breaks in Honolulu, they'll fly a 747 into Honolulu on another flight number, then continue it on as the regularly scheduled flight. They don't do this often, and usually only if it's something that's going to put the flight out of service for several days.

Seems funny though that radiation in the areas of the crash scenes were blammed on Depleted Uranium, when the 747s were the last to carry it. The 757 and 767 cary Tungsten for counterweights.

...But I can say this. I have booked flights well in advance, and every time, the exact type of plane is always specified. ... which seats have electrical outlets (when not flying 1st class at least). I have yet to run into a case where the model of plane was different from when the flight was booked...

Snoopy - I stand partially corrected. I checked back on the last 10 flights I have taken this year, and with 4 of them an aircraft type was specified at the booking stage and the other 6 there seems to be no reference to any type, either on the booking or the ticket.

However, I will say that of the 4 bookings which do feature a specific aircraft type, in 2 cases I remember the aircraft actually used was not that on the booking. In one case, incredibly, the type on the ticket was a Fokker 27, and the actual aircraft used was a Boeing 747!!! This was an internal flight in Iran, from Esfahan to Tehran, in August this year - a flight of only 30 minutes. The other was a BA flight from LHR to DUS where the booking shows a A321 and where the aircraft used - after a delay and 2 proposed aircraft changes - was definitely a B-737.

Maybe internal flights in North America are more specific about aircraft types. I don't fly internally in North America very often, so don't remember.

As others have pointed out, 747s may not be used internally in NA very much. The hijackers wanted to use airlines with American 'identities' for political reasons and this may have restricted the choice.

I have never flown a 747 or sim. However, other pilots I know have always praised its delightful handling characteristics and commented on how docile and easy it is to fly. This was an unexpected bonus the Boeing design team discovered only when it was first test-flown, and after 25+ years of service it still maintains this reputation. I remember when landing at Kai Tak, the old airport in HK, 747s were literally stood at 90 deg on the starboard wing on final approach before dropping the final 1500ft to the short runway with 60deg of flap, to the consternation (nay, terror) of passengers landing there for the first time. This happened 30 or 40 times each day for 20 years, with 100% safety record.

reply to post by bovarcher


I need to check my source book but I do believe that Iran Air still flies the 747-SP which is a short version of the 747. Since it is state owned it does not have the economic demands that a normal airline would have. So if the Fokker was down that may have been the next avalible plane (provided the destination had a large runway)

en.wikipedia.org...

Edit; i too have flow into the old Hong Kong airport and man it has to be experienced to be belived for sure

[edit on 11/1/07 by FredT]

I'm taking your post in the best way possible, but wish to clarify a point you raise:

The differences are huge in terms of aerodynamics, stall speeds, turning radii, power to weight ratios and countless other factors that make a fully laden 747 harder to handle than a twin engine wide-body.

Yes - the aircraft are different, but a jet doing 300 kts is a jet doing 300 kts. I'm not going to guess what you might know (or not), but a heavy 747 is just as capable of maneuvering like a 757 or 767. Your point is valid, but as we're not talking about trying to land one of these jets, it is moot. For the hijackers purposes, a 744 would have been better vs. a 757 or 767. It wouldn't be any harder to fly, contrary to popular belief, either.