Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
UPS Airbus A300  
User currently offlineKALB From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 573 posts, RR: 0
Posted (14 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3769 times:

HEAVYJET, a UPS pilot, mentioned in another post that he is transitioning from the 757/767 to Airbus 300. When did UPS acquire Airbus A300s? Where did they come from and are they being converted to freighters? HEAVYJET, could you share with us what your training will be like to transition to the A300?

20 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineHeavyJet From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (14 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3402 times:

UPS will take delivery of our first A300 freighter in mid July of this year. UPS has ordered 30 airplanes with an option to buy an additional 30 for a total of 60 A300-600's through the year 2008. While these will be new aircraft off the assembly line, we are the last customers before production of the A300-600 stops. They'll be powered by PW 4058 (58,000lb thrust) engines.

Training will begin next week for company sim and IOE instructors in Miami and initially taught by FlightSafety. Our new simulator is still being built and should arrive the beginning of August, at which point all training will be in house.


User currently offlineBoeing727 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 955 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (14 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3329 times:

Do the new A300 still have the yoke infront of the pilot, or has the A300/310 line move to side joysticks as well. Why the move to Airbus HeavyJet? New Challange? Just curious.

Thanks, Boeing727


User currently offlineFDXmech From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3251 posts, RR: 34
Reply 3, posted (14 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3322 times:

The A300-600 has a conventional yoke with primary flight controls using cable runs
not fly by wire



You're only as good as your last departure.
User currently offlineHeavyJet From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (14 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 3316 times:

FDXmech pretty much covered the yoke thing.

Why the move, you ask? Good question! I been asking myself the same thing. In a moment of weakness I accidently submitted a bid when the new aircraft was announced. New challenge, something different........yea, that sounded good 6 months ago until I got the system manual that's as big as a New York telephone book!!

Actually, I instructed on the B757/767 for many years and volunteered to sim instruct on the Airbus. Ideally, the company wanted B757 qualified crewmembers (management & line pilots) to help with the A300 program as the operating philosophy and procedures (two man cockpit, FMC's, automated, etc..) are basically the same.

I don't believe I'll stay on the 'Bus very long...maybe a year or two. I'm a "Boeing" guy at heart and probably always will be.

Bill (Future Bus driver)


User currently offlineWorldTraveller From Germany, joined Jun 1999, 624 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (14 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 3300 times:

Hi HeavyJet!

How about flying the A3XX cargo in a few years?

That really is a heavy jet and would be a real treat for you!  

How's UPS philosophy on the new big BUS?

Happy BUS-driving,

the WorldTraveller


User currently offlineKALB From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 573 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (14 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3282 times:

HEAVYJET, What was UPS' philosophy in ordering the Airbus A300-600? Is not the 767-300F an aircraft of similar capability, why not order more 767s unless the price was too good to pass up? I appreciate you and other ATPs who take time to share info with us "wannabees" and other pretenders.

User currently offlineHeavyJet From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (14 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3290 times:

I think it was more political than anything, IMHO. They were wanting to expand into Europe, so...buy a European product...bata bing, bata boom..your in!

I think the A300's are in the 50 million dollar range vs 80-100 mil for the B767-300ER's. It's hard to justify (economically)flying a 76-300ER domestically...like we do. That's not what it was designed for. The A300 will economically be better suited for a heavy lift domestic aircraft. I'd personally rather see more 767's (-200's) but I don't think it'll happen.


For "WorldTraveller": Don't believe will see the A3XX. Word around the campus is that we'll probably be ordering B747-400's soon for our new heavy lift and converting are existing fleet to a two-man aircraft.


User currently offlineRyaneverest From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (14 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3263 times:

Would you mind sharing the advantage of information with us -- Do you know where UPS would fly the A300?

User currently offlineHeavyJet From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (14 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3256 times:

>>Do you know where UPS would fly the A300?<<

Not sure right now where it'll be flying in and out of......sorry.


User currently offlineRichie From Switzerland, joined Dec 1999, 143 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (14 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 3244 times:

Well, believe the change had also to do with the fact, that the A300 has a wider and therefore more versatile fuselage compared to the 767. Besides UPS and I believe Airborne Express, nobody in the express business has 767Fs. And in the heavy freight market there is only LAN Chile. Asiana has one, another ordered (the first of LAN, by now) and just sold this one to LAN. MAy make sense for the Chilean, but for all the others, its just not the right airframe

User currently offlineUPS Pilot From United States of America, joined May 1999, 871 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (14 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 3229 times:

First off Heavy Jet has nailed it as far as the questions. I do know some guys that went to FDX a month or so ago to begin training on the 300 bus. I am not going to be a bus driver. KPIT said they will be getting one before peak of 2000 for sure to either replace the DC-8 that flys in there now or to replace the 72's that are flying there now. The 75 was taken out to fly out of MIA on the Challenge routes that we aquired.
I heard also about the 744f was going to be the next purchase, probably about the time of the China routes being awarded. We are in talks right now with both Boeing and Airbus for aircraft purchases. Could UPS be a launch customer again for a new freighter? (777) (A330) Continental has purchased some 767-200's recently so Boeing is still producing them. Heavy Jet do you think this would be a consideration?
I did hear that FDX is looking hard at the A3xx and also Atlas. I've asked this before though, with the double deck how in the world does Airbus plan on loading the upper deck? There will be no loading from the nose only side cargo doors. I'm sorry but ground equipment is expensive and this is going to limit the A3xx if new equipment needs to be purchased just for the A3xx.
The A300 was bought for political purposes but also to keep Boeing honest. I love Boeing products but I can see it from a business prospective to use in leverage for the next purchase.


User currently offlineFLY DC JETS From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 199 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (14 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3193 times:

"The A300 was bought for political purposes but also to keep Boeing
honest. I love Boeing products but I can see it from a business
prospective to use in leverage for the next purchase."

Could it just be that the Airbus aircraft better fit your company's needs? Why is it that every Airbus purchase is political or due to the planes being given away? It think it's time that people wake up and realize mother Boeing isn't the only company out their that makes quality aircraft.

Would you please state the politcal reasons?


User currently offlineWilliam From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 1315 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (14 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 3180 times:

FLY DC,the fact that FDX are flying 300s and 310s answer your question if they are good aircraft. I remember correcty and A300 can take 40 ton or 50 tons coast to coast.

User currently offlineUPS Pilot From United States of America, joined May 1999, 871 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (14 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3179 times:

First off I'm not going to get into a "Boeing vs. Airbus" debate! The "Political Reasons" are UPS is expanding it's presence in Europe. What I feel they are trying to accomplish is also supporting the European economy. Have you noticed that alot of European aircraft that were bought from Boeing have RR engines on them? Have you noticed the increase in Airbus orders especially from very long European customers like BA? UPS ordered the Airbus because yes it is a good aircraft. Yes they did get a good price on them, and Yes they wanted to support the European economy so they could gain more support in the Eurpean community. Did I say anything negative of the A-300? No! The A-300 is a perfect fit in the UPS System I feel because it frees up the 767-34ERF to fly the routes it was intended for (Long Range International). Yes UPS could have opted for a 767-200 freighter but chose the Airbus to fly the high capacity regional routes that it is intended for. The A300 has a good reliability record and is a good aircraft it's just I personally like supporting Boeing.

User currently offlineN-156F From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (14 years 6 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3149 times:

I'm happy UPS has chosen Airbus for this one- even if the decisions are purely political in this case (which they certainly appear to be), and I would back Boeing over Airbus in practically any dispute, the A300 was designed for short, thick regional routes, and the 763 was not. It's logical, however if politics hadn't been involved, I believe UPS would've gone ahead with more 767Fs.

User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29813 posts, RR: 58
Reply 16, posted (14 years 6 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3117 times:

Everybody keeps talking about the political choices that may behind the ordering of this aircraft.

Anybody think that Bucking Bar that UPS found in the tail of that 767 may have had something to do with it???



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineBalloonatic From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (14 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3069 times:

"With the double deck, how does Airbus plan on loading the upper deck?"

Most likely with self contained elevators, so existing high load cargo equipment need not be replaced.


User currently offlineFXRA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 708 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (14 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3086 times:

Well, i can say you'll be hard pressed to maximize a payload on the A300 with the type of freight UPS flies, same as Us at FDX. I personally have only found one problem (more like an annoyance) to the A300s but you only run into it on when you start maximaizing payloads.

Also, way back when FDX bought the buses originally, it was also seen as a big "political" move, and probably was. We are just now starting to fly A310's around Europe replacing boeings. However, when UPS placed this last order, Airbus did come to FDX and ask if we wante dmore at a reduced price, to really make the building more economic for Airbus. FDX declined due to its heavy involvement in the MD10 conversions (the first of which should be online now)

I Do find it amusing that UPS was using FDX for initial training for pilots... i wonder if we are charging them alot?? And as for the A3XX, i've been hearing for years, since i first heard of that project, that FDX was "involved" in the designing. So FDX ordering the A3XX would not surprise me.

As for loading that beast.... i can only imagine. Appearently there are 2 options.. design new loaders for the ramp that can reach that high (which is expensive) or put some kind off cargo elevator in the plane (think how much weight this would take up, also lossing some economics). And then doing a weight and balanc on that thing (the fedex way ie over complicating it) ugh i shudder.

thats my $.02



Visualize Whirled Peas
User currently offlineHeavyJet From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (14 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 3055 times:

>>I Do find it amusing that UPS was using FDX for initial training for pilots... i wonder if we are charging them alot??<<

I, for one, wish we were still using FDX for training...at least until our sim arrives in Aug.

Our initial batch of 4 A300 instructors went to FDX and were very impressed with their training facility and the level of instruction they received.

Upper management at FDX finally decided they didn't want UPS on the property using their training facilities and pulled the plug on us. We've been using FlightSafety in Miami and American Airlines for training (just finished my oral this week). Can't say I'm overly impressed with Flight Safety's facilities or program and American doesn't have much sim time available to offer us.

Delivery dates for our A300's will be increased. 21 aircraft by the end of 2001 vs 11 that were originally scheduled. This has increased the urgency for training facilities and the pick'ens are slim.

How do I like the Airbus...you ask?? Well, "It's not your father's Oldsmobile..." 

I like the ECAM (brings up checklists and system displays)and the vertical tape airspeed on the primary flight display which displays V-speeds and a speed trend arrow...nice! On the down side, the systems, while automated, are not as user friendly as the B75/76...sniffle, sniffle.  The non-normal checklist can be long and somewhat confusing at times. The FMC is not as intuitive as the Boeings and I'm having to unlearn alot of things when dealing with it.

Still a Boeing man......



User currently offlineKALB From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 573 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (14 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3010 times:

Thanks for the update HEAVYJET. Please keep them coming. KALB

Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic UPS Airbus A300
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
The Original Airbus A300 Design posted Mon May 15 2006 17:40:45 by 747400sp
Airbus A300 Super Transporter posted Wed Feb 12 2003 22:12:02 by TWAMD-80
Why Airbus For Start-ups? posted Mon Nov 13 2006 18:27:42 by AirWillie6475
UPS And Their A300 posted Fri Jul 28 2006 10:48:38 by Jonathan-l
What Engine Model On UPS A300-600's? posted Sun Feb 16 2003 15:00:42 by VC-10
Airbus In Antarctica posted Mon Dec 11 2006 07:27:04 by Cascade07
Airbus And Boeing Throttle Controls posted Tue Dec 5 2006 15:30:41 by Treeny
Funny Or F&*(@$# Up Write Ups..... posted Fri Nov 24 2006 03:02:17 by Zvocio79
UPS 757 Landing At Night W/o Lights? posted Thu Nov 16 2006 08:00:51 by Motopolitico
A300 Dimensions posted Thu Nov 9 2006 04:54:13 by Rom1

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format