Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Is The 757 So Succesfull As A Cargoplane?  
User currently offlineAbleToFly From Denmark, joined Nov 2006, 118 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 7456 times:

I just caught myself wondering that, when reading the topic FedEx and the 757.
How come the 757 has become such a succesfull cargoplane? Also the DC-10's, MD-11's, 727's and not to forget the DC-8's? How come cargo companies tend to choose theese old planes? I don't really get it. Need some help understanding.  Smile

Regards.

19 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7690 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 7464 times:

Is that all one question?.

User currently offlineAbleToFly From Denmark, joined Nov 2006, 118 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 7440 times:

Sorry, actually just asking for the 757. The other planes where just something that came up my mind while writing..  Yeah sure

User currently offlineOkie73 From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 446 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 7351 times:

Quoting AbleToFly (Thread starter):
Also the DC-10's, MD-11's, 727's and not to forget the DC-8's? How come cargo companies tend to choose theese old planes?

can't answer on the 757 specifically, but the reason many cargo companies go with older airplanes is the low acquisition cost. It's not that an older airplane can't still fly for a passenger airline, it's that it can't fly profitably. The time spent on maintenance becomes the issue. Partially because of the direct cost of doing the maintenance, but partially because of the indirect cost. Which is to say the lost revenue during the down time. That's not so much of an issue with many cargo carriers, who do not put the same number of hours on an airplane as a passenger carrier would.


User currently offlineKiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8580 posts, RR: 13
Reply 4, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 7330 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

don't forget that cargo doesn't care about flying on narrowbodies for hours , or going on an 'old' plane .

In any event , the 757 is still a relatively efficient design - just as it was a natural successor to the 727 in pax duty it is not surprising that further down the track it is seen as a natural successor to it for cargo . A lot of cargo ops are night time based and the 757 is a pretty quiet plane for its size



Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7690 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 7315 times:

No need to apologise.

User currently offlineAbleToFly From Denmark, joined Nov 2006, 118 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 7278 times:

Right. Thanks for the answers. I see the point though.

 Smile

Regards.


User currently offlineBongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3638 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 7202 times:

One major reason is the utilisation of planes for the overnight parcel carriers.

Typically when working for UPS, Fed Ex etc a plane will complete only one or two rotations per night; as the first rotation time is dictated by when the packets are ready for shipment, with typical last collection times being 18.00 from the customer, the packet needs to get to the warehouse and then to the airport. The packet then needs to get from the airport to the warehouse, and on to the delivery van for about 06.00 then next morning.

Thus the plane is unlikely to fly for more than 6 hours/night 5 nights/week. Compared to a passenger plane which might do 10 hours/day 7 days/week.

Thus fuel economy is not so important.

Specifically mentioning the 757, when looking at it compared to a 737, doesn't it look like a truck compared to a family saloon. I assume that its heavier build makes it able to carry far more both in weight and volume.


User currently offlineMPDPilot From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 994 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 7163 times:

Isn't another upside to the 757 being that it can haul a lot and still have a fairly decent range. cargo typically weighs more than passengers and limits the amount of fuel, the 757 would still be able to perform quite well even with a large cargo load. I have heard that 757 wing is one of the most powerful wings out there for its size.


One mile of highway gets you one mile, one mile of runway gets you anywhere.
User currently offlineMilesrich From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2006 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 6791 times:

The 757 has plenty of cargo capacity for a narrow body airplane, is very fuel efficient, and is overpowered. Just as the 727 lives on as a widely used cargo carrier, the 757 will do so as well, although very few have been retired by the passenger carriers.

User currently offlineMoek2000 From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 128 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 5573 times:

The 757 will be a successful cargo aircraft. I'm guessing probably in the next 10 to 15 years or so, the cargo 727's currently flying will be replaced by 757's. DL, NW, US, UA, AA, CO all fly 757's and they will eventually make their way into the cargo market someday

User currently offlineBA787 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2006, 2596 posts, RR: 7
Reply 11, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 5563 times:

This may be bullshit, but do Cargo planes have to be quite as safe as passenger a/c due to the low numbers of people on board. I know nothing about the cargo business, so don't flame me fot that Big grin

User currently offlineAlessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 5547 times:

Only 2 crew needed, compared with the 3 crew on bigger planes like the DC-10 and Tristar, many pilots around with B757/767 ratings. Spareparts are plenty and easy to get hold on.

User currently offlineCaptainsimon From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2006, 127 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 5523 times:

As already said the main factors are the payload it can carry for a narrow body also the 757 is overpowered with the RR RB211 engines.

User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31684 posts, RR: 56
Reply 14, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5248 times:

Quoting AbleToFly (Thread starter):
How come cargo companies tend to choose theese old planes

We operate B732SF & B752SF.The Advantage being compatiable Pallets for both Aircraft.
The B752SF being overpowered helps too.A huge fleet helps with stores Inventory beng less too.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineDiesel1 From UK - Wales, joined Mar 2001, 1638 posts, RR: 11
Reply 15, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 5134 times:

Quoting BA787 (Reply 11):
This may be bullshit, but do Cargo planes have to be quite as safe as passenger a/c due to the low numbers of people on board.

Yep, you're right, the flightdeck crew of a cargo aircraft are considered more 'expendable' than flightdeck crew on passenger aircraft, so the aircraft are less well maintained and not as safe. Also, if a cargo aircraft falls out the sky, it matters less if it lands on an inhabited area than if it is a passenger aircraft.

Hope this helps...  biggrin 



I don't like signatures...
User currently offlineBongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3638 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 5010 times:

Quoting Diesel1 (Reply 15):
Yep, you're right, the flightdeck crew of a cargo aircraft are considered more 'expendable' than flightdeck crew on passenger aircraft, so the aircraft are less well maintained and not as safe. Also, if a cargo aircraft falls out the sky, it matters less if it lands on an inhabited area than if it is a passenger aircraft.

I do not for one minute believe that there is even a single grain of truth in this statement; I am sure that the airworthiness requirements are exactly the same for both passenger and freight variants except for roles specific ones e.g cargo planes have a requirement for strengthened front bulkheads or aload restraining net to prevent freight moving forward during hard braking, whilst passenger planes have to satisfy passenger evacuation standards.


User currently offlineFriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4109 posts, RR: 5
Reply 17, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4850 times:

@Bongodog1964

I think he was being sarcastic...


User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31684 posts, RR: 56
Reply 18, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 4599 times:

True.Apart from the more peacefull environment of Cargo operators.The rest is the same Mx wise.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineDABZF From Germany, joined Mar 2004, 1201 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 4548 times:

Quoting BA787 (Reply 11):
his may be bullshit, but do Cargo planes have to be quite as safe as passenger a/c due to the low numbers of people on board. I know nothing about the cargo business, so don't flame me fot that

...yes it is b*shit!

Quoting Diesel1 (Reply 15):
Yep, you're right, the flightdeck crew of a cargo aircraft are considered more 'expendable' than flightdeck crew on passenger aircraft, so the aircraft are less well maintained and not as safe. Also, if a cargo aircraft falls out the sky, it matters less if it lands on an inhabited area than if it is a passenger aircraft.



Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 17):
I think he was being sarcastic...

... I sure hope he was being sarcastic!


What makes 757 so successful cargo plane? Well, can you actually say already that it does??? I think that the integrators (FedEx, UPS, DHL and guys) can make any plane successful for their needs... carrying envelopes doesn't really need that much. Yes, yes I know they carry lot of "hard cargo", to fill up the planes, as well but they are flying mainly envelopes and small parcels at least in Europe.

As far as I have understood the cargo 75's are not the easiest to balance on heavier loads... only what I have always thought. Someone correct me if I'm wrong!  Smile



I like driving backwards in the fog cause it doesn't remind me of anything - Chris Cornell
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...
Why Is The UK So Popular For Aircraft Maintenance posted Fri May 13 2005 14:46:00 by R3500vdp
Why Is The 767 So Behind The A330? posted Mon Jul 19 2004 09:48:25 by A380900
Why Is The DHC-8 So Popular In The Caribbean? posted Sun Jun 27 2004 06:18:35 by Flybyguy
Why Is The Tristar So Smokey? posted Mon Oct 27 2003 11:33:44 by Dreamliner
Why Is The 717 So Unsuccessfull? posted Sun Sep 2 2001 12:47:02 by Flying Belgian
Why Is The B757 So Popular For Charter? posted Wed May 9 2001 08:22:21 by YOERI1970
Why Is The RB211 So Heavy? posted Thu Dec 14 2000 21:36:14 by Raggi
Why Is The 787-9 Coming So Late In 2010? posted Thu Oct 19 2006 08:54:25 by Baron95
Why Is The IAE V2500 So Successful On The A320? posted Thu Jul 14 2005 16:45:08 by TheSonntag
Why Is The L1011 Going Out So Quickly? posted Sat Nov 29 2003 17:03:32 by Duke