Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
How Are Cargo Carriers Able To Use Older Fleets?  
User currently offlineFbgdavidson From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 3701 posts, RR: 28
Posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 3743 times:

A pretty simple question really but how come commerical airlines of this world get rid of older aircraft DC-8, 727, 747-100 etc. as they are financially unviable, yet a cargo airline is able to operate using them quite happily? What is different about the cargo business that makes older aircraft more suitable? Do they have more downtime between flights to complete maintenance?

Before someone responds saying it is due to passengers not feeling 'safe' or anything to do with passengers how come NW are still keeping the DC-9 around, for example?


"My first job was selling doors, door to door, that's a tough job innit" - Bill Bailey
10 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineJoost From Netherlands, joined Apr 2005, 3164 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 3713 times:



Quoting Fbgdavidson (Thread starter):
A pretty simple question really but how come commerical airlines of this world get rid of older aircraft DC-8, 727, 747-100 etc. as they are financially unviable, yet a cargo airline is able to operate using them quite happily? What is different about the cargo business that makes older aircraft more suitable? Do they have more downtime between flights to complete maintenance?

The total operating costs of an airplane are composed out of several factors, most notably:
- ownership costs (lease, mortage)
- maintenance costs
- fuel costs

* Ownership costs are fixed, no matter if you use the aircraft or not.
* Maintenance costs and fuel costs are variable, they increase when you use the aircraft more

Some of the cargo operators use the aircraft less hours (on a daily basis) than most of the passenger airlines. Therefore, they prefer LOW ownership costs, in exchange for higher variable costs. It's a simple balance.

If you use the aircraft a lot (pax airlines), you can better have lower fuel burn and maintenance costs as the savings there, compensate for the higher lease / mortage rates.

Most integrators have low utilizations, as the aircraft feed the trucks and vice versa, usually just one "wave" a day. Some other cargo airlines fly a low (like KL/AF Cargo, Lufthansa Cargo) and they usually have newer planes. KL Cargo, for example, has 3 744Fs, one of them brand new. AF Cargo will receive 777F aircraft, brand new.

Quoting Fbgdavidson (Thread starter):
Before someone responds saying it is due to passengers not feeling 'safe' or anything to do with passengers how come NW are still keeping the DC-9 around, for example?

By maintaining the aircraft good, safety should not be a problem.

NW has very low ownership costs on the DC-9s, although they will need a replacement some day. In the last years, while in bankruptcy, they had a relative bad credit rating and therefore, lease or mortage costs for new aircraft would have been very expensive, favouring the DC-9s. Airlines with a good credit rating (like AF, or also FR and U2) can get money cheap (good interest rates) and can easier buy new aircraft.


User currently offlineN27UADIESEL8 From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 59 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3708 times:

Hi Fbgdavidson:

Cargo carriers are able to use them since they do not fly them for more than 1 or 2 flights a day, also they do require more maintenance as they are older airframes. It also depends for which carrier are they flying.
Where i work now our B727's only fly about 2 flights a day and in every station if there is a maintenance issue is taken care of during downtime.

Hope I clear your question.


N27UADIESEL8



Fine Air flight 101 never again..............
User currently offline2175301 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 1037 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3675 times:

Another factor is the money that can be charged for cargo.

While cargo companies are competitive - and large customers do have choices - there is not the incessant drive to bottom of the barrel scraping prices that many passenger airlines engage in to gain business. Thus, both more money can be spent on fuel and maintenance without affecting overall profit than for many passenger airlines. In fact, a number of passenger airlines depend on their cargo operations for a good chunk of the overall company profit.


User currently offlineFbgdavidson From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 3701 posts, RR: 28
Reply 4, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3366 times:

Thanks for the detailed information  thumbsup 


"My first job was selling doors, door to door, that's a tough job innit" - Bill Bailey
User currently offlineClipperNo1 From Germany, joined May 1999, 672 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3181 times:



Quoting 2175301 (Reply 3):
there is not the incessant drive to bottom of the barrel scraping prices that many passenger airlines engage in to gain business

Thank you very much for healthy good morning laugh!



"I really don't know one plane from the other. To me they are just marginal costs with wings."� Alfred Kahn, 1977
User currently offlineJhooper From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 6202 posts, RR: 12
Reply 6, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3169 times:

A few of the "classics" are approaching aging aircraft limits where they'll be subject to a much more rigorous maintenance program. It's at this point that alot of the airplanes are gotten rid of by the cargo companies.


Last year 1,944 New Yorkers saw something and said something.
User currently offlineAcidradio From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 1874 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3159 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

One of the reasons airlines continually upgrade airplanes is in order to provide comfort and amenities to passengers. Interiors get retrofitted on a regular basis and systems like video-on-demand are installed. Packages and letters though don't demand such amenities. They don't mind how they got across the ocean, whether it's in a ratty old 747-100 or a brand new 767.


Ich haben zwei Platzspielen und ein Microphone
User currently offlineKensukeAida From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 217 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3092 times:

Well, first of all, most of the worst offenders in terms of inefficiency are re-engined. This includes FX's 727s and 5X's DC-8s.

The DC-8-60F is an excellent cargo carrier when re-engined thanks to its long fuselage which can equip 18 18x125 containers. That's is more than a 757, and they're easier to get a hold of because pax carriers still see a lot of worth in the 757.

I also think a lot of the "classic" jetliners were ridiculously overbuilt (ie "they don't make 'em like they used to"). The DC-8 was designed for something on the order of 100,000 cycles, and I believe the 727 was no slouch here either.

Quoting Fbgdavidson (Thread starter):
Do they have more downtime between flights to complete maintenance?

Yes. By a pretty big margin.

- John


User currently offlineJettaKnight From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 195 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2838 times:



Quoting 2175301 (Reply 3):
both more money can be spent on fuel and maintenance without affecting overall profit than for many passenger airlines.

While I agree conceptually with your post, I have to challenge the above statement. Every nickel spent on fuel and maintenance affects overall profit.


User currently offlineWjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5130 posts, RR: 22
Reply 10, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2712 times:

The other thing to remember is that dispatch reliability of older aircraft is inadequate when used in high-cycle service, but sufficient in low-cycle service.

The typical utilization of airline aircraft in service involving Self-Loading Cargo is much higher than with actual boxes, which, as noted above, are typically serviced in one or two waves a day, often in stages of an hour or two. The cargo operators that operate longer stages and higher utilization would find it better to use more fuel efficient, 2-person cockpit, lower maintenance per hour, aircraft.


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...
How Are Olympic Athletes Flying To Slc? posted Thu Feb 7 2002 20:24:28 by Ryu2
How Are The Commuters Going To Fair? posted Tue Sep 18 2001 05:57:13 by PSU_DTW_SCE
How Was This Guy Able To Fly The Plane? posted Thu Aug 30 2001 05:41:43 by PanAm747
How Is The Concord Able To Fly So High!? posted Thu Jun 15 2000 20:54:49 by DUB
Wonder How Old Cargo Fleets Are? Just Click Here! posted Thu Dec 16 2004 12:05:54 by Udo
How To Use SeatCounter.com? posted Tue Sep 25 2007 05:30:24 by AA7295
How Are The Regional Alaskan Carriers Doing? posted Wed Aug 22 2007 22:21:37 by AllegiantAir
How To Use/search Acars Database posted Thu Apr 19 2007 01:00:10 by MarkChief
DL Flights To FDF & PTP : How Are They Doing? posted Sun Jan 28 2007 19:28:11 by Goldorak
How Many 747-400s Converted To Cargo? posted Sat Nov 25 2006 17:45:03 by DIJKKIJK