Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
FedEX, UPS And Others Buying C-17's  
User currently offlineAFHokie From United States of America, joined May 2004, 224 posts, RR: 1
Posted (10 years 5 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 8153 times:

What's everyone's thoughts on cargo companies eventually buying C-17's? The thing is designed to haul cargo and on/off load quickly.

28 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineFlyingColours From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2315 posts, RR: 10
Reply 1, posted (10 years 5 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 8020 times:

I was going to ask the exact same question yesterday!, I think it would be expensive to operate (fuel wise). Also I am not sure if companies/civilians are allowed a military model.

Good question

Phil
FlyingColours



Lifes a train racing towards you, now you can either run away or grab a chair & a beer and watch it come - Phil
User currently offlinePilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3150 posts, RR: 11
Reply 2, posted (10 years 5 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 7946 times:

There are civilian versions of the C-130 hauling frieght around, the model is the L-100.

With all the widebody aircraft available on the aftermarket that have lots of life in them and can be aquired for much less than a new aircraft I don't see the C-17 a viable (but legitimate) contender for civilian contracts.



DMI
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29802 posts, RR: 58
Reply 3, posted (10 years 5 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 7888 times:

Not going to happen.

The USAF even tried to help encourage airliners to try and pick them up for CRAF fleet use, but there where no takers.

Too slow, too big, too inefficent, compared to commercial aircraft.


And then there is the price.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineJcded From Switzerland, joined Jan 2004, 213 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (10 years 5 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 7855 times:

Boeing is marketing the C-17 as the BC-17X to companies interested, problem is a lot of the systems were made to high military standards and the aircraft itself was made to fly beyond commercial flight enveloppes making it inherently more expensive. For going to remote airfields with little ground equipment this plane would be excellent for cargo operators but as most commercial cargo hubs have loading and unloading equipment a used 747/757/767 or A300 from the desert can do quite fine.

more info http://www.boeing.com/commercial/pd/bc17x/index.html

[Edited 2004-05-23 16:22:49]


You breathe to do good and have fun.
User currently offlineEXMEMWIDGET From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 212 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (10 years 5 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 7780 times:

There is not much of a need for overnight package companies to justify using an aircraft like the C-17. The vast majority of the cargo that FedEx and UPS carries are packages that are 150 lbs. or less. A C-17 would only be practical for tremendously oversized/overweight freight that a widebody couldn't carry easily. I would doubt that there would be enough volume of this type of air freight that could warrant the expense of adding another aircraft type to a carriers fleet.

User currently offlineHlywdCatft From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 5321 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (10 years 5 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 7738 times:

A C-17 would be more practical in one of the adhoc cargo companies such as Kalitta or USA Jet, one that hauls a lot of heavy automotive freight.

User currently offlineDABZF From Germany, joined Mar 2004, 1201 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (10 years 5 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 7663 times:

I read some articles few years ago (before 9/11) that there were plans having C-17's leased out to cargo carriers during "peace time" and then getting them back to military service when situation so requires! Well, as situation is now I guess the USAF planes are pretty heavily used but I don't know if this concept is still alive!?


I like driving backwards in the fog cause it doesn't remind me of anything - Chris Cornell
User currently offlineFlying-Tiger From Germany, joined Aug 1999, 4165 posts, RR: 36
Reply 8, posted (10 years 5 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 7186 times:

It's easier to take the way cheaper and better alternative AN-124... just go to Volga-Dnepr or Antonov Airlines, and you've the choice.

Regards
Flying-Tiger
http://fly.to/rorders



Flown: A319/320/321,A332/3,A380,AT4,AT7,B732/3/4/5/7/8,B742/4,B762/763,B772,CR2,CR7,ER4,E70,E75,F50/70,M11,L15,S20
User currently offlineM404 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 2227 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (10 years 5 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 6917 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The quote I'd read from either Boeing or the Air Force was that the civilian carrier would then have to buy tankers to get them to adapt to routes - not a shining recommendation.


Less sarcasm and more thought equal better understanding
User currently offlineCloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (10 years 5 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 6785 times:

To top it all off, chartered Russian military transports do everything the BC-17 could do and do it for a lot less money. The Russians have the relatively small market for civilian use of military transport capabilities pretty much tied up.

User currently offlineVC-10 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 1999, 3702 posts, RR: 34
Reply 11, posted (10 years 5 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 6715 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

No chance, a C-17 would bulk out before it got anywhere near its MTOW if operated by Fedex or UPS so wouldn't be cost effective

User currently offlineAsteriskceo From United States of America, joined May 2004, 481 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (10 years 5 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6536 times:

They would only need a couple. They could add charter cargo routes where no runway is needed, the C-17's big thing is that in can land just about anywhere, and thats pretty amazing considering its size.

User currently offlineMaiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 50
Reply 13, posted (10 years 5 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 6372 times:

too inefficent

Exactly. They might as well take the C141's that are being retired. At least the 141 can make it across the ocean without being refueled.


User currently offlineAuae From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 296 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (10 years 5 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 6257 times:

I agree with all the posts above, the C-17 is way to fuel/range ineff to be considered. (maybe they could sell a package deal with 767 tanker concept  Smile )

Along the same lines though:

IF the C-17 were stretched to make the aerodynamics better, and thus the range better, and if a mid floor was built in, would Cargo carriers be more interested?

Similarly, Cargo carriers seem to focus on buying freighter versions of pax aircraft. What would it take for a Cargo carrier to buck this trend and look for an airplane designed from the ground up to operate as a cargo aircraft?

I think the ability to resell the aircraft and the tremendous commonality between pax/cargo conversions is a big hurdle to selling an all cargo aircraft to the Cargo carriers.

Shawn



Air transport is just a glorified bus operation. -Michael O'Leary, Ryanair's chief executive
User currently offlinePilotNtrng From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 897 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (10 years 5 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 6193 times:

Id like to know where you guys are getting the concept that the C17 is inefficient, too big, and too slow. I have seen that bird do things, that no other aircraft it's size could even think of doing. Such as doing a 180 on a taxiway or landing in 3000ft, or how about cutting all 4 thrust reversers in flight. That thing will go and land anywhere but on water. I love it and I think it would be a great cargo hauler for civililan use. It may reduce the fleet size of the comapnaies and therefore save money. Just my two cents.



Brad



Booooo Lois, Yaaaa Beer!!!
User currently offlineHirnie From Germany, joined May 2004, 595 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (10 years 5 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 6151 times:

As L-188 said: Too slow,too big too inefficient..
As long as the AN 124 is available no company will buy such an expensive aircraft.But it would be very interesting to see a C-17 in civilian colours...


User currently offlineMaiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 50
Reply 17, posted (10 years 5 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 6115 times:

Id like to know where you guys are getting the concept that the C17 is inefficient, too big, and too slow. I have seen that bird do things, that no other aircraft it's size could even think of doing. Such as doing a 180 on a taxiway or landing in 3000ft, or how about cutting all 4 thrust reversers in flight. That thing will go and land anywhere but on water. I love it and I think it would be a great cargo hauler for civililan use. It may reduce the fleet size of the comapnaies and therefore save money. Just my two cents.

Just your two cents...

That was the only thing I agree with in that statement.

I sincerely doubt that FedEx or UPS would really need this aircraft to stop in 3000ft or do 180's on runways, or land on unprepared surfaces.  Yeah sure


You like this aircraft and its plain to see that you based your comments on your liking of this aircraft. Thats fine.

I kinda like it too. I do, however, know that it wouldnt make a good civilian frieghter, at least not in its current entity.

That is all.





User currently offlineGreg From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (10 years 5 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 6018 times:

It's prohibitively expensive to operate at a profit.
What can it do that a 767 or 300/330 freighter can't do? There are not enough short, undeveloped airfields to make it worthwhile.


User currently offlineAa717driver From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 1566 posts, RR: 13
Reply 19, posted (10 years 5 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5930 times:

Welllll... Maybe FedEx could convert some of its MD10's to KC-10 standards and that would fix the range problem with the BC-17. Big grin

At least with the BC-17, IND wouldn't have to pave the third parallel runway for FedEx! Big grin TC



FL450, M.85
User currently offlineDarrenthe747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (10 years 5 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5830 times:

bottom line is civilian companies must use the most efficient airplanes for obvious reasons. c-17s are pathetically slow and guzzle fuel. i would be shocked if a company ever bought a c-17. another thing about military versions and civilian versions, a c-17 cockpit is not much different than any other wide body cockpit. i am in the USAF and no pilot has ever told me not to take pictures or not to tell anybody about the "secret stuff" in the cockpit. And when i go to airshows with c-17s there they allow civilians to go up with cameras and take all sorts of pictures (even after 9/11), so it is very unlikely that civilian companies would not be allowed to purchase the same version.

User currently offlineVorticity From United States of America, joined May 2004, 337 posts, RR: 5
Reply 21, posted (10 years 5 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 5762 times:

It's like buying a Hummer to deliver pizzas. The vehicle is over-designed for what the commercial cargo companies need. One design doesn't fit all unfortunately.


Thermodynamics and english units don't mix...
User currently offlineAdriaticus From Mexico, joined May 2004, 1137 posts, RR: 19
Reply 22, posted (10 years 5 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 5608 times:

<< The vast majority of the cargo that FedEx and UPS carries are packages that are 150 lbs. or less. A C-17 would only be practical for tremendously oversized/overweight freight that a widebody couldn't carry easily >>

Right about the C-17 being practical only for tremendously O/S weight. Normally, Express Delivery Companies (as they like to be called now) will carry items like animal cages, large engines, machinery, etc. using skids up to 119 x 70 inches. Larger loads can be accomodated using special skids - like for cars, for example.

So, just to add to what most of the posts say, it is practically unnecessary for EDC's to use an aircraft such as the C-17.

__Ad.



A300/18/19/20/21 B721/2 B732/3/G/8 B741/2/4 B752 B762/3/4 B772/3 DC8/9/10 MD11 TU134/154 IL62/86 An24 SA340/2000 E45/90
User currently offlineAsteriskceo From United States of America, joined May 2004, 481 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (10 years 5 months 21 hours ago) and read 5415 times:

think charter cargo.

User currently offlineARCJET From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (10 years 5 months 20 hours ago) and read 5320 times:

"At least the C-141 can make it across the pond without being refueled"

I flew aboard a C-17 nonstop from Andrews AFB to RAF Mildenhall, England
and back again with no refueling.


25 US653 : I never had heard of the BC-17 before. Is there actually something on their website about it? I do remember seeing info for the MD-17 when McDonnell D
26 M404 : I guess the best evidence against the (b)C-17 civilian version is that from the beginning the manufacturer has had feelers out to the cargo community
27 Maiznblu_757 : Maiznblow How original. It was your opinion. Fact remains FedEx or UPS would never buy the C-17 in its current form because it is very inefficient.
28 Post contains images Cloudy : I never had heard of the BC-17 before. Is there actually something on their website about it? I do remember seeing info for the MD-17 when McDonnell D
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Fedex, UPS, And DHL In PIT posted Wed Dec 28 2005 05:51:16 by CentPIT
How Does FedEx/UPS/DHL/and The Like Work? posted Wed May 17 2006 18:31:58 by B777A340Fan
Fedex, ABX, And UPS Routes posted Mon Sep 19 2005 13:09:23 by Squirrel83
Did UPS And FedEx Cancel Their 380 Orders? posted Wed Aug 24 2005 18:43:20 by Jdwfloyd
Biggest US Cargo-Airline Besides UPS And FedEx? posted Sat Jun 11 2005 00:48:22 by MD 11
UPS And FedEx Long Hauls... posted Fri Sep 24 2004 21:38:42 by Aa777jr
Need Help From UPS And FedEx Ramp Workers posted Sun Nov 23 2003 23:36:46 by IflyORL
Movements Of UPS And Fedex At EWR posted Thu Jul 31 2003 01:34:32 by I LOVE EWR
What Aircraft Are UPS And FEDex Using To Hkg? posted Thu Nov 1 2001 10:50:29 by CX773
UPS And FedEx posted Sat Jul 1 2000 06:08:17 by Ben88