Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
World Airways Considering C-17's!  
User currently offlineBoeing757fan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (12 years 11 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1078 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?

 Big thumbs up


15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineBoeing757fan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (12 years 11 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 984 times:

Just did a little searching. Heres what I came up with.

http://www.aviationnow.com/content/publication/awst/20010219/aw49.htm



User currently offlineRyu2 From Taiwan, joined Aug 2002, 490 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (12 years 11 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 937 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.

What's up with this new scheme, then?


User currently offlineFlyBoeing From United States of America, joined May 2000, 866 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (12 years 11 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 917 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.

Just my thoughs, though...


User currently offlineSrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (12 years 11 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 869 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.

User currently offlineAviasian From Singapore, joined Jan 2001, 1486 posts, RR: 15
Reply 5, posted (12 years 11 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 866 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 . . .

KC Sim
Bangkok


User currently offlineBoeing757fan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (12 years 11 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 769 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.

You know how it goes.


User currently offlineSSTjumbo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (12 years 11 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 759 times:

Do you really mean the C-17 or the unordered civil MD-17? Sorry if I sound ignorant. I only read part of the post.

User currently offlineBoeing757fan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (12 years 11 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 757 times:

You should have read the whole post. Its the C-17, thats what it says in WAFN anyhow.
If the USAF ever needs it, its got to be the same as the rest.




User currently offlineL.1011 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 2209 posts, RR: 9
Reply 9, posted (12 years 11 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 754 times:




I dont mean to sound like a know-it-all, but civil C-17s are called MD-17s.


User currently offlineBoeing757fan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (12 years 11 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 749 times:

Not according to WAFN. So your saying they will be MD-17s when used for an airline, then when the USAF needs them, they change it to C-17?



User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (12 years 11 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 745 times:

Maybe WAFN won't get a fully-civil MD/B-17, but this interest from the commercial market may prompt Boeing to produce the MD/B-17

ps. I've just realised, they can't really call it the B-17, can they?  Smile


User currently offlineBoeing757fan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (12 years 11 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 736 times:

B-17... Lucky I know you mean C-17.

 Smile/happy/getting dizzy


User currently offlineGreg From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (12 years 11 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 726 times:

They use B for bombers
C for cargo/transports
F for fighters
V for helicopers/veritcal take off
I'm not sure what the KC is for..but they appear to be for refueling aircraft.


User currently offlineN863DA From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 48 posts, RR: 6
Reply 14, posted (12 years 11 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 717 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?

FLY DELTA JETS and sail UNITED STATES LINES



N 8 6 3 D A


User currently offlineArchie Bunker From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 401 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (12 years 11 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 718 times:

I think the designation is BC-17.

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...
World Airways "acmi" Cargo Contracts posted Sat May 26 2007 14:02:10 by OceansWorld
World Airways Agrees To Be Acquired posted Thu Apr 5 2007 23:31:40 by Mainland
World Airways Being Bought Out? posted Sun Apr 1 2007 15:06:56 by AirTran737
Two World Airways Aicrafts Have Landed At MSP posted Thu Dec 21 2006 00:51:20 by Af773atmsp
Which World Airways 707 In 2nd Dirty Harry? posted Thu Dec 7 2006 08:36:11 by Starstream707
World Airways And UPS Livery posted Sat Nov 25 2006 12:15:05 by 777way
World Airways Decides On A New Livery posted Sat Sep 2 2006 01:05:48 by IAirAllie
Pan American World Airways Finally Ends Chapter 11 posted Wed Aug 16 2006 23:56:50 by FlyGuyClt
World Airways 727 In Vietnam, March 1975 posted Tue Aug 8 2006 03:30:01 by Falstaff
World Airways Question posted Sun Jul 23 2006 00:30:55 by ContinentalGuy