Why Didn't They Hijack 747s??

Just a random thought, but one I think is important: if they wanted to inflict major damage, why not hijack 747s?? When fully loaded, they have takeoff weights of 875,000 lbs - nearly triple that of lightly loaded 767s and 757s that they chose. 76 pax + fuel for a 5 hour flight ~300,000 lbs (MTOW is something like 480,000 lbs with 300 pax and fully fueled for 14 hours).

Why choose "light" aircraft?

[edit on 29-10-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

Good question, i have no idea why they didn't. It doesn't make sense.

Weren't all the flights "hijacked" domestic flights? If so, do 747's fly domestically? Also, didn't domestic flights have alot less security than International one's?

Answer those questions and you'll have your answer....

To the best of my knowledge no 747 flies domestic routes anymore. And a stumason notes security on International flights seems to have been higher at the time.

Also the complexities of a four engined aircraft are different that the smaller twins that were used.

It also may have been a logistical issue as well. Training on a twin is perhaps easier and less suspicious that trying to get training on a 747-400, A340 or even a MD-11

It seems to me that it didn't matter, they were quite effective with the planes they choose.

There were a VERY limited number of flights that flew 747s domestically on that day. They were usually flights that became international flights after arriving at a destination. I can only think of a couple of flights that operated them at the time.

Interesting comments. Thought I'd just throw that out there.

Also the complexities of a four engined aircraft are different that the smaller twins that were used.

I don't agree - the only difference is the number of engines.

Good point on the security aspect. In my country, international and domestic WERE treated equally from a security point of view. Today it is slightly different, and is dependent upon where you're flying to.

I believe they were chosen because of the few amount of passengers.

Less crowd control, I would assume.

reply to post by mirageofdeceit


Hmmm having flow in both the actuall 747-400 sim and a 767-200 sim (At Boeing the 747 was much harder. However, Im not a pilot so it may just be my perception. I do know that the rating for multi engine aircraft is harder. perhaps some actuall pilots can chime in

[edit on 10/29/07 by FredT]

I have my own question on the inverse.... So much money was spent on training and support... Why not save a bunch of money and Rent (or steal) A bunch of mini jets? The restirctions were then and still are now less. YOu can privatly load them with what ever you want with as much as you want to load of it. Drug smugglers do it every day. With all the potential risks Why use commercial air liners at all when Smaller mini jets would of required less people and could of hit more places loaded with much more dangerous things rather than just fuel????

For me personal September Clues answers all my questions.

Because you not only get the damage with passenger planes, but you get people scared to fly because they don't know if the guy next to them is a hijacker or not.

reply to post by stumason


Yes, those are the two main reasons I'm sure. I do wonder though how the two-deck layout of the 747 would have affected them had they tried to use one.

lets not be hasty. they used what was available to them at the time. they probably couldnt be that picky. im sure they would have loved to load a nuke on board a plane and bring it over here. but thats besides the point. too many innocent lives were lost. and i hope i never hear another goddamn conspiracy theory about the tragic events of 9/11.

Probably because the 747 would not be as common. There were more factors to consider than simply the amount of damage done. They had to take into account the number of people on board. The more people, the more likely a chance of a revolt. They also needed to go at certain times such as to reduce the number of passengers. They had to be able to study the flights for a long time. Thus since the 757 and 767 were much more common planes, they could more easily take trips to study the behavior of the crews, the locations and layouts of the planes, etc. They could have a better chance o a domestic flight. Also, getting training/flight simulators may have been a factor.

Lots of factors, so when everything is totaled up, those probably became the best chance.

Number of reasons why used 757/767 versus 747 or other aircraft types

757/767 were common aircraft flown by many carriers which made it
easier to pick what flights to target. As others have pointed out, are
twin engine aircraft making training to fly much simplier. Also 757/767
were designed about 20 years after 747 during during which were great
strides in avionics. Improved avionics meant flight training and
management were much easier. Also was number of passengers -
witness Flight 93, was lightest loaded of all the planes, only 40 crew &
passengers vs 4 hijackers. Once informed of what was happening staged
revolt to take plane back forcing hijackers to crash plane before being
overpowered. 757 have only a single aisle limiting means of attck by
passengers. 767 have 2 aisles - speculate what might have happened
on other flights if passengers were aware of what was going to happen
Groups of passengers attacking along several axis could have taken
aircraft back.

At least one of the hijackers was considering a 747. There were six separate 747 cockpit manuals and two videos found in the apartments were the hijackers lived.

I would think that it would be harder to fly a 747 and also find four of them departing near the same time.

The answer to this question is simple.

When you book an airline ticket, for example from Dulles to LA, it is not possible to know what type of aircraft the airline will allocate to that route on the day. With most airlines I know, a decision is usually made at short notice, dependent on the number of passengers booked on the flight and aircraft availability. If passenger numbers are high, then a bigger aircraft is used. Aircraft are often changed at the last minute because of operational reasons - a late incoming flight, or a minor malfunction with the previously dedicated aircraft which can't be fixed in time means a reserve aircraft needs to be used.

Ergo, if you intend to hijack a plane, there is no possible way you can know in advance what type of aircraft you will end up with. You just plan for all possible eventualities. If you intend to use the aircraft as a missile to attack a building and end up with a 747, I suppose that might be seen as a bonus as the size and mass of the aircraft is so large that the impact damage would be greater. But there is no way you could guarantee it would be a 747.

reply to post by bovarcher



I don't know if I can agree here. But it's not my field of expertise to know for sure. I think someone who works for an airline would be needed. But I can say this. I have booked flights well in advance, and every time, the exact type of plane is always specified. And often a specific flight is tied to the same airplane. The flight number in my experience has often consisted of a specific route and plane. NOw I would imagine there are times where they have to swithc planes when it comes to maint, or if a problem arises. But being that they include the plane type in the booking, I am skeptical of the claim that they change planes at the last minute all the time.

The reason I know this is because I always check the model of plane I am booking so that I can look up which seats are the best ones and 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.

Given the great resources of the members of this forum, I am sure someone might be able to shed some light on this.

I agree with snoopys point, above. Technical problems aside, you usually know what you're going to be flying on.

[edit on 31-10-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit

I don't agree - the only difference is the number of engines.

Sorry to say this - and I'm sure that you didn't mean it to be - but thats one of the most ignorant statements I've read on ATS in my time here.

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.