Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Fuel Stop In ANC Saves Cargo Carriers Big $$$  
User currently offlineBoomBoom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 9200 times:

From the Anchorage Press:

Quote:
Just a few decades ago, advances in aviation almost seemed to eliminate the need for an airport in Anchorage. A flight from Shanghai to Dallas was suddenly possible.

But manufacturers and carriers came to realize a few things. Fuel is heavy, for example. And fuel doesn't pay for its space and weight on a plane. If a 747 fills the tank only halfway and makes a pit stop in Anchorage, more paying cargo gets on board.

A cargo plane might make $130,000 flying direct from Asia to the Lower 48, said Bob Poe of the Anchorage Economic Development Corporation. That same plane can make $220,000 just by stopping in Anchorage, Poe said, because it can carry more cargo and less fuel.

Last year, Anchorage unseated Tokyo as the third-busiest cargo airport in the world (Memphis and Hong Kong are first and second, respectively). Most international cargo planes arrive in Anchorage for a "quick turn" that amounts to about an hour on the ground.

http://www.anchoragepress.com/archives-2006/coverstoryvol15ed27.shtml

So this explains why FedEx and UPS plan to stop in ANC with their A380s.

24 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26175 posts, RR: 50
Reply 1, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 9181 times:

Somewhat a dumb article filled with errors. For instance Transmile operates with MD-11s not a B747.

But anyways, cargo carriers as they are able overfly ANC more and more as possible. There has been a growth as newer longer range equipment as the B744F comes on line that multiple West Coast and even Midwest-Asia flights operate non stop overflying ANC now. JAL, EVA, SQ, Polar just to name a few offer services bypassing ANC.

A landing itself is a costly venture from fees, lost time, often need for crew changes, hotels, etc..

Quoting BoomBoom (Thread starter):
So this explains why FedEx and UPS plan to stop in ANC with their A380s.

No, both carriers plus Northwest use ANC as a transhipment station and transload aircraft between various Asian points and the Lower 48.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineLotsamiles From United States of America, joined May 2005, 323 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 9118 times:

A quick check of jet A pricing shows ANC about 1$ higher than in the lower 48. Surely the major carriers have contracts for fuel with perhaps hedged pricing, but it goes to strengthen the case for a stop over even more when it costs so much for fuel but they still do it.

Also of importance is all the cross loading that happens in ANC as cargo is moved onto different aircraft to optimize the routings.

I once heard a speech from the VP of NWA Cargo. When asked why they don't move to 744F's and skip ANC, he responded that they hub in ANC so the extra range is of no use. Now this was before the latest fuel spike so perhaps he would like to have those 744's now for the fuel burn!

Lotsamiles


User currently offlineSkywatcher From Canada, joined Sep 2002, 469 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 9110 times:

Where does the aviation fuel in ANC come from?

If it is economicly refined locally from North Slope crude it may make sense but if it is shipped in from afar/taxed heavily by the state of Alaska maybe it's not such a no-brainer.

Does anybody have an answer?


User currently offlineCarpethead From Japan, joined Aug 2004, 2980 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 9090 times:

Even with A380 and 744F/748F, the ANC stop will not totally be eliminated. While some eastbound Japan-US westcoast may become non-stop, anything else will require a stop in ANC. Anything else to the west and south of Japan will require a stop in ANC regardless of US destination.

User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 9037 times:

Quoting Skywatcher (Reply 3):
Where does the aviation fuel in ANC come from?

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_go2304/is_200204/ai_n6880222


User currently offlineBoomBoom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 9016 times:

Quoting Skywatcher (Reply 3):
If it is economicly refined locally from North Slope crude it may make sense but if it is shipped in from afar/taxed heavily by the state of Alaska maybe it's not such a no-brainer.

It's North Slope crude refined instate. The higher fuel costs may be offset somewhat by lower landing fees.

There are also some other advantages:

Quote:
With the exception of Alaska, international-bound air cargo on a foreign airline must stay on that carrier, even if the plane lands at other U.S. airports. The airline can switch planes in certain cases, but it cannot switch carriers. In Alaska, and only in Alaska, international cargo can move from one carrier to another, and from plane to plane, without “breaking its international journey.” With thousands of pounds of cargo at stake, not to mention operating costs, the savings are significant.


User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9836 posts, RR: 52
Reply 7, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 8912 times:

Quoting Lotsamiles (Reply 2):
A quick check of jet A pricing shows ANC about 1$ higher than in the lower 48. Surely the major carriers have contracts for fuel with perhaps hedged pricing, but it goes to strengthen the case for a stop over even more when it costs so much for fuel but they still do it.

Actually hedging usually has no effect on the actual price payed for jetA at the airport. WN will pay the same as UA even though WN has much of its fuel costs hedged. By hedging, WN buys contracts for oil at a given price in a future date. It then sells this oil when the contract term is up and makes a nice profit (currently although it could make a loss) and then uses the profits to offset fuel costs.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineSkywatcher From Canada, joined Sep 2002, 469 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 8864 times:

So Alaska has doubled up the benefits of its hydrocarbon resource to help make another industry (aircargo) more viable. Very impresive.

Actually, it's probably more efficient to load the refined fuel directly on aircraft than it is to ship the raw crude south for processing anyhow.

Maybe Sakhalin Island in Russia will figure out how to pull this off some day.


User currently offlineLotsamiles From United States of America, joined May 2005, 323 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 8780 times:

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 7):
WN will pay the same as UA

Don't the major buyers get preferential contracts given their volume? I can't imagine everyone simply pays the spot price, but perhaps so.


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29840 posts, RR: 58
Reply 10, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 8711 times:

For those of you who don't know the Anchorage Press is the city's free "Alternate" newspaper. Their personals section is one of the more entertaining around.

However it is a simple truth that you don't make money flying gas around, so for freight carriers making intermediate stops make a lot of sense. And with the cross loading of freighters at Anchorage even more so.

JAL is doing that right now...dropping 3 747's in at the same time from different places, switching the loads and then heading off to 3 different destinations. This maximises the usage of the aircraft and keeps unused space to a minimum.

Quoting Skywatcher (Reply 3):
Where does the aviation fuel in ANC come from?

If it is economicly refined locally from North Slope crude it may make sense but if it is shipped in from afar/taxed heavily by the state of Alaska maybe it's not such a no-brainer

Most of it used at Anchorage comes from the Flynt Hills (Formerly Williams) refinerly up at North Pole, outside of Fairbanks. The oil is sourced from the North Slope and the refinery is tapped into TAPS. The refined crude is transported by train to Anchorage. There is a pipeline that runs from the port of Anchorage to the airport.

They used to run trains to the airport and take fuel in tanks that where accross from the Alaska Airlines HQ up here but they got rid of that right before they converted that spur line to run to the new passenger train terminal at the airport.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineANother From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 8306 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 10):
JAL is doing that right now...dropping 3 747's in at the same time from different places, switching the loads and then heading off to 3 different destinations. This maximises the usage of the aircraft and keeps unused space to a minimum.

Does the cargo clear US customs as well - or does that happen at the different destinations?


User currently offlineMCOflyer From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 8691 posts, RR: 16
Reply 12, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 7971 times:

From what Ive herd, its a 1hr 30min turn around. A new crew will replace old crew, and the new jet will take off. Btw, is NW cargo getting 742's from the desert to convert them to F status? I recall someone saying this.

MCOflyer



Never be afraid to stand up for who you are.
User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 7308 times:

Quoting Carpethead (Reply 4):
Even with A380 and 744F/748F, the ANC stop will not totally be eliminated.

That is correct, FedEx has already alerted ANC that it will continue using ANC for a refueling stop. In fact FedEx and UPS have major hubs here, and FedEx also operates a flight simulator here.

Even with the longer range a/c, it is still an advantage to the carriers to stop here for fuel . . . it allows a larger payload. Landing fees are relatively cheap comparatively speaking and fuel is refined locally, decreasing that cost as well.

Quoting ANother (Reply 11):
Does the cargo clear US customs as well - or does that happen at the different destinations?

No, unless it's destined for ANC. Otherwise, it is only transshipped. There are US Customs officers at the facilities however, and cargo is screened during the transloading, it is not however "officially" cleared.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 10):
Most of it used at Anchorage comes from the Flynt Hills (Formerly Williams) refinerly up at North Pole, outside of Fairbanks.

ALL of it consumed at ANC and FAI is refined at Flint Hills Refinery. Neither airport imports fuel from Outside.
Virtually all cargo carriers traversing the pacific rim stop in ANC or FAI . . . exceptions are few, LH is one - and they just recently stopped using FAI after some 17+/- years in favor of a stop in Russia (much tothe chagrin of the LH crews).

A quick scan through the database here - looking at ANC photos - give you an idea of the number of carriers, and various a/c we see here for cargo.

Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport is ranked as the #1 Airport in the United States for landed weight of Cargo Aircraft, #3 in the world for cargo throughput and #1 in service in the 2005 Air Cargo Excellence Survey.
http://www.dot.state.ak.us/anc/

Domestic Carriers at ANC http://www.dot.state.ak.us/anc/travelerInfo/airlineInfo.shtml

International Carriers at ANC
http://www.dot.state.ak.us/anc/travelerInfo/INTLairlineInfo.shtml


User currently offlineAirbuseric From Netherlands, joined Jan 2005, 4277 posts, RR: 51
Reply 14, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 6942 times:

With JL recently new acquired -400F and 1x -400BCF and also the upcoming converted freighters more and more cargo services between Japan and Europe will become non-stop over Siberia.
Today, cargo flights (opb. 74Y) to Europe all stop at ANC, but from Europe back home to Japan, they all go non-stop. It's a sort of around-the-world cargo flight. Most European cargo to Japan is consisting of heavy volume, not heavy weight, therefore the ANC stop is not neccesary with the new aircraft generation with JL. e.g. US cargo mostly consists of heavy (car) parts for automobile industries in Japan. To uplift as much as possible payload, an to be able to cross the Pacific, the intermediate stop for refuelling at ANC is being made.

Eric



"The whole world steps aside for the man who knows where he is going"
User currently offlineBoomBoom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 6391 times:

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 1):
There has been a growth as newer longer range equipment as the B744F comes on line that multiple West Coast and even Midwest-Asia flights operate non stop overflying ANC now. JAL, EVA, SQ, Polar just to name a few offer services bypassing ANC.

Yet cargo revenue landings and gross takeoff weights continue to increase:

Year: Landings/Takeoff Weights 1000#
2000: 38,144 / 20,268,769
2001: 39,881 / 21,140,279
2002: 39,356 / 20,920,586
2003: 41,380 / 23,972,815
2204: 42,351 / 24,459,763
2005: 45,950 / 26,732,329

http://www.dot.state.ak.us/anc/busin...s/marketing/statistics/index.shtml


User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26175 posts, RR: 50
Reply 16, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 6224 times:

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 15):
Yet cargo revenue landings and gross takeoff weights continue to increase:

Yes because there have been a larger concentration of ops by carries like UPS, Fedex, NWA whom run transhipment hubs at ANC along with the older 747 type operators whom dont have much of a choice but stop.

Take a look at the timetable of airlines with growing B744F fleets and you will see several of them bypassing ANC. There is simply no need, and more expensive to stop if the payload/range capabilities of your aircraft offer nonstop capabilities to the West Coast, Midwest or Europe from Asia.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29840 posts, RR: 58
Reply 17, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 6109 times:

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 16):
There is simply no need, and more expensive to stop if the payload/range capabilities of your aircraft offer nonstop capabilities to the West Coast, Midwest or Europe from Asia.

Refer back to my earlier comment about not making money flying gas around.

Any Jet fuel they don't have to load on the airplane is another pound that can be replaced with revenue cargo, which is why for freight-which doesn't really give a damm how many stops it makes-taking shorter trips is still economic.

Newer airplanes may have higher payloads and ranges, but it may not be as economic to take advantage or that, when you can take advantage of the lower fuel burn, make the same stops but carry less fuel and more freight.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26175 posts, RR: 50
Reply 18, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 6005 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 17):
Any Jet fuel they don't have to load on the airplane is another pound that can be replaced with revenue cargo, which is why for freight-which doesn't really give a damm how many stops it makes-taking shorter trips is still economic.

Newer airplanes may have higher payloads and ranges, but it may not be as economic to take advantage or that, when you can take advantage of the lower fuel burn, make the same stops but carry less fuel and more freight.

I am very well versed with the economics of the cargo business.

If stopping was such a preffered method we would see airlines all over the world would be hop scotching around stopping frequently at a host of airports.

The fact remains that each stop adds cost. If one can operate for example Korea-West Coast nonstop with a full payload one would as this is preferable to stopping.
Stopping in a place like ANC adds a cycle on the airframe, extends overall aircraft flight and block times, possibly requires a crew change, has additional landing/nav and handling cost, consumes more overall fuel than a direct nonstop. For instance a ICN-ANC-LAX routing uses more fuel than a ICN-LAX nonstop at the same payload.

As more B744Fs and SFs come on the market you'll see more flights routed nonstop overflying places like ANC. Two recent examples are Air France which received B744F no longer stop in FAI enroute to Asia from Paris, but instead fly nonstop over the former USSR. Another one JAL whom with its B744 can now ops NRT-Europe and NRT-SFO-LAX direct instead of stopping in ANC as previously.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinePmurr From Fiji, joined Mar 2005, 36 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 5626 times:

For similar reasons Fedex and UPS use Nadi as re-fueling stop for their AUS-USA traffic.

User currently onlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2260 posts, RR: 56
Reply 20, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 4697 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 17):
Any Jet fuel they don't have to load on the airplane is another pound that can be replaced with revenue cargo

This is not true for an aircraft operating at maximum structural payload, which is often the case for cargo. One less pound of fuel does not result in one more pound of payload, because the aircraft is already at maximum payload.

The new long-range freighters (777F, A388F) can fly long ranges without having to trade fuel for payload. They can fly their maximum structural payload out to 4900 nm and 5600 nm respectively. Only beyond those ranges does the tradeoff that you described come into play.

Whether this long range capability results in a reconfiguration of the cargo networks remains to be seen. Boeing says the following about the 777F:

Quote:

The airplane's range capability will translate into significant savings for cargo operators: fewer stops and associated landing fees, less congestion at transfer hubs, lower cargo handling costs and shorter cargo delivery times.

They don't talk about skipping ANC, but it doesn't take much of a mental leap  Smile


User currently offlineRyDawg82 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 868 posts, RR: 8
Reply 21, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 4629 times:

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 16):
Take a look at the timetable of airlines with growing B744F fleets and you will see several of them bypassing ANC. There is simply no need, and more expensive to stop if the payload/range capabilities of your aircraft offer nonstop capabilities to the West Coast, Midwest or Europe from Asia.

I'd invite you to come have a look at all the former classic 747 freight operators that stopped in ANC and who now fly nothing but the -400Fs through. I'd say we see more activity of those carriers who switched than before. Sure some are able to bypass ANC, the reality they aren't. L-188 noted flying gas around makes no sense. Carriers are choosing to stop in ANC as there is an obvious economic benefit.
-R



You can take the pup out of Alaska, but you can't take the Alaska out of the pup.
User currently offlineAirbuseric From Netherlands, joined Jan 2005, 4277 posts, RR: 51
Reply 22, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 4582 times:

Quoting RyDawg82 (Reply 21):
Sure some are able to bypass ANC, the reality they aren't. L-188 noted flying gas around makes no sense. Carriers are choosing to stop in ANC as there is an obvious economic benefit.

Except JL for all their Europe-Japan flights by -400F/-400CF .
As said before, only the Japan-Europe sectors stop at ANC now. Chances are very likely that this will change in the (near) future, when more -400CF's are joining the fleets, and a new setup of the schedules will be made.
Other carriers I don't know exactly, but KZ is also flying a couple of European routes now non-stop to Europe (as they stopped at ANC before when operated by -200F)



"The whole world steps aside for the man who knows where he is going"
User currently offlineHa763 From United States of America, joined Jan 2003, 3673 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 4164 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 6):
With the exception of Alaska, international-bound air cargo on a foreign airline must stay on that carrier, even if the plane lands at other U.S. airports. The airline can switch planes in certain cases, but it cannot switch carriers. In Alaska, and only in Alaska, international cargo can move from one carrier to another, and from plane to plane, without “breaking its international journey.”

That quote is not exactly correct. Alaska is not the only place where this can happen. The same thing happens in Hawaii and I do this kind of thing everyday. All the Asian carriers transfer tons of cargo to domestic pax and cargo airlines in HNL. Most of the outbound cargo from HNL is actually transit cargo from Asia. JAL even has a special program to promote HNL as a transit point for cargo. As long as the cargo is in-bond, it can transfer to another carrier and ship-to-ship.

Quoting ANother (Reply 11):
Does the cargo clear US customs as well - or does that happen at the different destinations?

What happens is that any transit cargo gets a transit clearance from Customs. However, as the first US port, all information must be entered into Customs. Cargo can be stopped at the first port of entry for inspection or denied entry. The final delivery clearance is done at the final destination.


User currently offlineCaptainStorck From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 68 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3479 times:

Can a B744F or an A388F carry full payload with the fuel to make it from asia to the states (or vice versa)? Because the reason the stop in ANC is economical is that each flight can carry more cargo in the place of the extra fuel that would be required to make the longer flight.

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...
Delta 214, EGE-ATL, Fuel Stop In Tulsa? posted Thu Feb 10 2005 03:44:46 by Fiveholer
Fokker 100 Tech Stop In ANC?! posted Wed Jul 28 2004 00:01:14 by Akjetblue
Fuel Prices In Caracas (CCS), Good Refueling Stop? posted Sun Jul 9 2006 05:05:32 by Baron95
Cargo Carriers To And From U.S.-Brazil? posted Wed Nov 22 2006 04:55:14 by Starstream707
UPS Expanding In ANC posted Wed Nov 15 2006 05:26:25 by GentFromAlaska
DL112 Stop In Iceland? posted Mon Nov 6 2006 22:53:31 by Delta762
KL691 AMS-Toronto Fuel Stop At MAN posted Wed Oct 25 2006 17:10:31 by Oly720man
BA LHR-PHL Stop In YQX posted Sat Aug 12 2006 03:25:43 by YULYMX
Artic Thunder Air Show In ANC, Whos Going? posted Fri Aug 11 2006 05:51:59 by Alaska737
Miami Herald Critical Review Of Cargo Carriers. posted Sun Jul 9 2006 19:23:48 by Eksath