Boeing757fan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (14 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 1322 times:
I dont know why I am posting this, you all are going to think I am out of my mind... Its true. I just read in World Airline Fleets News that World Airways is considering buying the C-17, under a civil reserve scheme.It calls for the Air Force to provide an upfront sum of money and annual payments to the buyer of the planes in exchange for access to the aircraft in times of need. Initial studies show that the USAF would pay $US30 Million as a first payment,only 20% of the roughly $US152 Million it costs for each C-17. Further payments would be made if the aircraft is pulled to perform official military service. This arrangement could save the USAF $US6 Billion over the life of the 10 aircraft expected to be involved in the pans first phase. Now, because the aircraft is a military vehicle, it has to be worked out with the State Dept. to grant some sort of broad liscense to whatever private company plans to use the planes. Without that aggreement in place, federal officials would have to sign off on EVERY trip he aircraft makes outside the US.
Now, this has possibilities. Its got to go through a lot. My question to you, will this work? Will the C-17 look any better?
Ryu2 From Taiwan, joined Aug 2002, 509 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (14 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1181 times:
in exchange for access to the aircraft in times of need
I thought that the US government had the authority to utilize any US airline's fleet for service in the event of war or national emergency. During the gulf war, you saw UAL, etc transporting the troops to/from the Gulf.
FlyBoeing From United States of America, joined May 2000, 866 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (14 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1161 times:
Well, $30 million per aircraft is probably a compensation payment by the government because the C-17 is kind of a fuel-inefficient aircraft from what I've heard. That extra cash covers some of the marginal costs involved in operating a military aircraft in a nonmilitary environment.
It's different with the government financing the purchase of 747s; those aircraft aren't as well suited to military operations as the C-17 is. So the government doesn't need to entice anybody to buy 747s.
Srbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (14 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1113 times:
I does make quite of bit of sense, considering that World is one of the primary Air Mobility Command contractors. Boeing is already marketing the C-17 for civilian use, so why not have World Airways be the launch customer for the (B)C-17? Although I would like to see it painted in a livery a little bit better than the drab all-white that is so commonly used for World's a/c. And look of the benefits, World could handle oversized cargo that a current civilian freighter aircraft can't handle unless severely modified (Airbus' A300 Beluga family; Aerospace Lines Guppy). That would put extra money into World's coffers.
Aviasian From Singapore, joined Jan 2001, 1490 posts, RR: 14
Reply 5, posted (14 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1110 times:
The C-17 is an awesome aircraft . . . great looks from almost any angle. I've had many opportunities to see and photograph it landing at Singapore Changi Airport, and love its great looks. And it is about time that some civil operators see the benefit of this beautiful gentle giant . . .
Personally, I hope that this opens the floodgates to other freight movers . . .
Boeing757fan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (14 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1013 times:
The C-17 would be a great aircraft for this use. Looks, thats another story, but, it doesnt mean much, its what works that counts. This is going to be a drawn out process. I am sure there are going to be big studies, and more money spent doing it, even though we can all see that its a good idea.
N863DA From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 48 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (14 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 961 times:
You miss understood what 777236ER said...
Instead of being the MD-17, (for McDonnell Douglas) they could change it (the CIVILIAN version) to B-17 (for Boeing). But of course the B-17 is the Flying Fortress... and you could never taint the name of such a piece of wonder with a run-of-the-mill military cargo-lifter.
And it's a simple question. If World Airways gets these, will they be MD-17s or C-17s... will they be civilian aircraft, drawn for military use when needed, or military aircraft in use with a civilian operator?