Normally, the justification or rationale for airlines retiring passenger aircraft (DC-8, 727, DC-10, etc.) is that they are “not fuel efficient” or “too costly-to- maintain.” However, often, these retired aircraft and purchased by other airlines and then converted to freighters.
My question is: If a passenger airline could not justify operating these old aircraft any longer, how could a cargo airline? For example, all U.S. majors retired their 727s in the 1990s. They were then picked up by FedEx and other cargo operators and converted into freighters. How is it that they would be more cost-effective for FedEx to operate than for United to operate? Do cargo operations simply yield that much more revenue? Furthermore, often, these aircraft which are allegedly not cost-effective or costly-to-maintain are picked up by start-ups, who have very little capital with which to operate.
Most cargo aircraft have MUCH lower utilization than passenger aircraft.
A typical FedEx plane sits at the outstation all day long, loads up and flies to Memphis (or one of the smaller hubs) in the evening, sits there for a few hours, loads up, and goes back to an outstation arriving in the early morning hours. That’s that aircraft’s ENTIRE day. Based on the amount of revenue that aircraft is bringing in, the airline can’t justify making the payments on a new aircraft.
Also, notice that many of the airlines ARE going towards more fuel efficient aircraft as more fuel efficient aircraft become excess and available for Freighter conversions (for example FedEx is getting 757’s).
If you’ve looked at recent passenger startups in the West, very few have used older aircraft.
Operating costs are pretty much the same, although UPS did re-engine both the DC-8s and 727s. The big difference is acquisition costs, once airliners are retired by the majors they are relatively (!) cheap to buy compared to new purpose-built frieghters. UP and FX do buy new as well though.
The next trend will probably be converted Bombardier CRJs.
The problem with the CRJ from a cargo perspective is that it can’t lift a whole lot of weight (which is one of the reasons cargo airlines really like the DC10 and 727-100).
For the relatively short flights which use feeder aircraft, an RJ’s cost per mile is not cost effective. That’s why FedEx is the largest user of the Cessna Caravan, and for higher volume feeder routes they’re using converted ATR turboprops.
An interesting fact about cargo aircraft is that it is quite often possible to “volume out” an aircraft before you reach the maximum payload. I have the feeling that when CRJ and other regional aircraft get past their useful life they won’t be going the way of the 727-100 when it ended passenger service. They may be able to carry X tons of freight but there’s no place to put it because of the volume of the cargo.
No, the CRJ will not find a place on the trunk cargo routes; remember FedEx started with Dassault Falcons and ran out of volume very quickly.
The CRJ will appeal to the second-string, light or package carriers (Ameriflight etc.) on longer sectors where Navajos, Metros and Beech 99s are maxing out. 1 CRJ flight is a lot more efficient than 2 or more turboprops.
Don’t look to AMF to buy those. They recently changed all their Portland OR UPS flight from all but 3 flight done in -99’s and 1900’s to all Navajos.
They are selling all their Lear -35s
Lear-Star - Rolls Royce powered Large Cabin Jet designed by Bill Lear to compete w/ the Gulfstream. Shelved for lack of funds and then sold to Canadair.
Challenger 600 - Lear-Star reincarnated with GE engines by Canadair to fulfill design commission by Fed-Ex to replace Falcon 20 fleet. Fed-Ex hated the GE engine on the Falcon so much they forced Canadair to re-engine the design. The chosen power plant was an Allison that turned out to be junk. The resulting aircraft didn’t perform close to a 727 and cost more, Fed-Ex backed out.
Challenger 600, became a Bizjet. They put the GE engine back on and it became a successful bizjet (601). They stretched that and it became an RJ.
Short story - The RJ has already failed as a freighter.
(foot note - the Fed-Ex commissioned caravan was successful)
Just clarifying: Pat206 was comparing 1 CRJ to 2 TPs or more. If you have too many packages for one ATR, wouldn’t it be cheaper to fly one CRJ vs. two ATRs on the same route?
Are you not realizing what, and how big a ATR is? They have a very large capacity, and and they already have a large cargo door that’s standard.
And… Don’t you think that the smart folks at FedEx and UPS have already considered whether RJ’s would be viable? Yep. Obviously they’ve determined that they are not cost effective by the fact that they don’t use RJ’s. It would be further cost prohibitive to convert an RJ to install a cargo door, and the additional structural weight would adversely affect the CG of a RJ. Again…it’s been thought of and dismissed for good reasons. Instead they contract the use of ATR’s all over the world.
Just to throw my hat in the ring…and to say at the beginning I agree with your info. On one of our 10’s one evening I found a load sheet from the morning turn. That particular a/c started its day in SEA-MEM-IAD-MEM…BUT when it gets to its final stop it sits.
OK, I should have checked what an ATR looks like before posting. I was picturing something much smaller.
In my defense, I meant only to clarify that Pat206 was comparing one to two. I just thought that might have gotten lost, and might make a difference in your answer. Clearly it wouldn’t though.
Yeah…they’re actually more voluminous than a RJ. Now if you were thinking along the lines of a Beech 99 or 1900, I could see where you were going. However, those airplanes fill a completely different niche and serve operators like Ameriflight and their contracts quite well.
