Looks like DHL will become one of the first A330 P2F operators.

DHL signs first #A330-300 passenger-to-freighter contract with EFW and ST Aerospace at #FIA16.

https://twitter.com/Airbus/status/753166297882619904

So while UPS and FedEx keep ordering new planes, DHL keeps buying 20 year old used frames and converts them into freighters. Sound like a huge disadvantage on operating costs, I can only hope they kind of make it up again with help of the cheap aquisition costs.

First prototype was spotted last month:


https://www.flickr.com/photos/rexrsph/27545126430/

CARST wrote:

So while UPS and FedEx keep ordering new planes, DHL keeps buying 20 year old used frames and converts them into freighters. Sound like a huge disadvantage on operating costs, I can only hope they kind of make it up again with help of the cheap aquisition costs.

So we're not including the UPS MD11s or the FedEx A300/A310/B757/DC10/MD11 or some of their 767s?

It's no different to DL buying second hand MD90s or 757s, BA buying second hand A320s or Qantas buying used 717s....same principal .....does it put them at a disadvantage over other airlines?

Depreciation costs will be negligible on older planes, and why would it be a huge disadvantage? Curious to know why you think this is so wrong....

Cool. Can't wait to see it. Do we know the origin of the bird?

CARST wrote:

So while UPS and FedEx keep ordering new planes, DHL keeps buying 20 year old used frames and converts them into freighters. Sound like a huge disadvantage on operating costs, I can only hope they kind of make it up again with help of the cheap aquisition costs.

It's not like FedEx or UPS have only operated brand new aircraft.

There are 9 ex MH A330 stored since 2012/2013.

Perhaps they got a good price.

MH could use the money.

n729pa wrote:

Depreciation costs will be negligible on older planes, and why would it be a huge disadvantage? Curious to know why you think this is so wrong....

You are right. Depreciation costs are low. And I said aquisition costs are low, too. No discussion here. But MX costs will be higher and fuel consumption will be much higher, too.

Flying old planes IMO is always a gamble for fuel prices staying low.

SpaceshipDC10 wrote:

It's not like FedEx or UPS have only operated brand new aircraft.

They have many old planes, but at least they are trying to phase out the oldes ones and are buying new planes. When was the last time DHL has accquired new planes? Did they ever?


Not counting AeroLogic with the 77Fs. But AeroLogic is not DHL.

CARST wrote:

n729pa wrote:

When was the last time DHL has accquired new planes? Did they ever?

I believe they have never had new-built airplanes.

Have they announced who will operate them? Or even in which part of the world?

SpaceshipDC10 wrote:

CARST wrote:

n729pa wrote:

When was the last time DHL has accquired new planes? Did they ever?

I believe they have never had new-built airplanes.

Indeed, they have even scrapped some early 757F that they paid to convert originally, replacing them with newer 757F which they are again paying for conversion. So buying a used frame, doing a heavy check and conversion for a decade of utilization seems to work for them.

SpaceshipDC10 wrote:

CARST wrote:

n729pa wrote:

When was the last time DHL has accquired new planes? Did they ever?

I believe they have never had new-built airplanes.

DHL has 6 767-300ERF that are new-builds. 4 operated by DHL Air, 2 by Atlas/Polar.

CARST wrote:

n729pa wrote:

Depreciation costs will be negligible on older planes, and why would it be a huge disadvantage? Curious to know why you think this is so wrong....

You are right. Depreciation costs are low. And I said aquisition costs are low, too. No discussion here. But MX costs will be higher and fuel consumption will be much higher, too.

Flying old planes IMO is always a gamble for fuel prices staying low.

SpaceshipDC10 wrote:

It's not like FedEx or UPS have only operated brand new aircraft.

They have many old planes, but at least they are trying to phase out the oldes ones and are buying new planes. When was the last time DHL has accquired new planes? Did they ever?


Not counting AeroLogic with the 77Fs. But AeroLogic is not DHL.

CARST, I can see what you mean but seeing that DHL has always worked this way, I take it that it works for them and it doesn't give them a disadvantage over competing integrators otherwise they wouldn't be doing this for so long. Who knows they will (have to) change over time. It all depends on the market dynamics I'm guessing so as long as they can afford to do this without it being more costly for them and making them less competitive on the markets they serve, they will keep doing it.

In any case, those A330's will look awesome in the DHL yellow/red livery. It always stands out at airports when I see them.

A388

Rumor is that LH will be supplying a large number of A330 to DHL for conversion, that will be the current A300 replacement, the same source is saying that one large US carrier will be supplying B767's as the B757 replacement.

CARST wrote:

So while UPS and FedEx keep ordering new planes, DHL keeps buying 20 year old used frames and converts them into freighters.

UPS has no planes on order whatsoever. Unlike UPS, at least DHL is growing their fleet.

CARST wrote:

But MX costs will be higher and fuel consumption will be much higher, too.

Flying old planes IMO is always a gamble for fuel prices staying low.

MX and fuel isn't a big issue when the aircraft utilization is very low, like it is at DHL. Most aircraft only do a single roundtrip per weekday night to one of the DHL hubs.

CARST wrote:

n729pa wrote:

Depreciation costs will be negligible on older planes, and why would it be a huge disadvantage? Curious to know why you think this is so wrong....

You are right. Depreciation costs are low. And I said aquisition costs are low, too. No discussion here. But MX costs will be higher and fuel consumption will be much higher, too.

Flying old planes IMO is always a gamble for fuel prices staying low.

SpaceshipDC10 wrote:

It's not like FedEx or UPS have only operated brand new aircraft.

They have many old planes, but at least they are trying to phase out the oldes ones and are buying new planes. When was the last time DHL has accquired new planes? Did they ever?


Not counting AeroLogic with the 77Fs. But AeroLogic is not DHL.

why exactly is fuel burn "much" higher on a used 333 vs a new 333?
(don't forgot, you can't even buy a new 333F)

Allee wrote:

DHL has 6 767-300ERF that are new-builds. 4 operated by DHL Air, 2 by Atlas/Polar.

You are right. I already forgot those in their sea of second-hand aircraft.

I wonder of much "inefficient" would be (per Kg-nm) that old A330 compared with a modern , say, 77F. You may find some surprise.
Do not forget that those "old tech" pax A333 have successfully competed for a slice of the market of the new starship 788, even in high fuel price times.
If the price is right.....

CARST wrote:

So while UPS and FedEx keep ordering new planes, DHL keeps buying 20 year old used frames and converts them into freighters. Sound like a huge disadvantage on operating costs, I can only hope they kind of make it up again with help of the cheap aquisition costs.

You essentially swap high fixed costs and lower variable operating costs (new builds) for lower fixed costs and higher variable operating costs (old builds).

Both options can and do work - just a matter of getting it right.

Certainly if the economy tanks you are in a much better position with the old builds.

Aquila3 wrote:

I wonder of much "inefficient" would be (per Kg-nm) that old A330 compared with a modern , say, 77F. You may find some surprise.
Do not forget that those "old tech" pax A333 have successfully competed for a slice of the market of the new starship 788, even in high fuel price times.
If the price is right.....

As someone above mentioned, a new A333 is a pretty different aircraft from an old A333, particularly when it comes to efficiency. So it is not the old A333s competing with the "starship" 788.

flyPIT wrote:

CARST wrote:

So while UPS and FedEx keep ordering new planes, DHL keeps buying 20 year old used frames and converts them into freighters.

UPS has no planes on order whatsoever. Unlike UPS, at least DHL is growing their fleet.

UPS is in negotiations for a massive fleet overhaul. Once the pilots contract is ratified, they will move forward with new planes. They weren't going to do any buying until they had the contract signed.

Specifically the 747 and A300 replacements will be their top priority.

What A330s are these? There is so much variation in A330 operating weights and specifications.

If they are early or low-weight A330s, these may be good only for short-haul, high-volume routes. Later A330s can probably fly a full freight payload out to 6-7 hours, which will make them pretty effective 767-300F competitors.

Basefly wrote:

Rumor is that LH will be supplying a large number of A330 to DHL for conversion, that will be the current A300 replacement, the same source is saying that one large US carrier will be supplying B767's as the B757 replacement.

Is DHL planning a major expansion in freight carried? The A330-300 is a significantly large upgauge from the A300-600, as a 767-300 is for a 757-200.

Stitch wrote:

Basefly wrote:

Rumor is that LH will be supplying a large number of A330 to DHL for conversion, that will be the current A300 replacement, the same source is saying that one large US carrier will be supplying B767's as the B757 replacement.

Is DHL planning a major expansion in freight carried? The A330-200 is a fairly large upgauge from the A300-600, as a 767-300 is for a 757-200.

They will be ´300´s, not ´200s, so yes - thats a lot of packages....

piedmontf284000 wrote:

UPS is in negotiations for a massive fleet overhaul. Once the pilots contract is ratified, they will move forward with new planes. They weren't going to do any buying until they had the contract signed.

Specifically the 747 and A300 replacements will be their top priority.

And you know this how? The A300s were all new builds and still relatively young. Same with most of the 747s which are even younger. They do have a few 747BCFs and former Cargolux 744Fs that need to be replaced, but other than that its really the MD-11 fleet which would need replacing.

The pilots finally have reached a TA with UPS after 5 long years of negotiating, which has turned the previous 5 year contract in to a 10 year contract. As of now there is no guarantee that it will be ratified.

deltal1011man wrote:

why exactly is fuel burn "much" higher on a used 333 vs a new 333?
(don't forgot, you can't even buy a new 333F)

Converted freighters are usually heavier than new build freighters.

SpaceshipDC10 wrote:

Cool. Can't wait to see it. Do we know the origin of the bird?

MSN 116, ex-Malaysia Airlines (ex-reg 9M-MKI), owned by Apollo Aviation (current reg G-CIOH).

Please ignore Mr. Branson he wants to pick another argument about things he does not understand.

Who will be operating these, will they be for DHL Air or European Air Transport? Or replace some flying by Polar, Southern Air and Kalitta?

KarelXWB wrote:

MSN 116, ex-Malaysia Airlines (ex-reg 9M-MKI), owned by Apollo Aviation (current reg G-CIOH).

Okay. So it's a 1995 A333, wfu in 2012 and stored since.

http://www.planespotters.net/airframe/A ... tion-Group

flyPIT wrote:

piedmontf284000 wrote:

UPS is in negotiations for a massive fleet overhaul. Once the pilots contract is ratified, they will move forward with new planes. They weren't going to do any buying until they had the contract signed.

Specifically the 747 and A300 replacements will be their top priority.

And you know this how? The A300s were all new builds and still relatively young. Same with most of the 747s which are even younger. They do have a few 747BCFs and former Cargolux 744Fs that need to be replaced, but other than that its really the MD-11 fleet which would need replacing.

The pilots finally have reached a TA with UPS after 5 long years of negotiating, which has turned the previous 5 year contract in to a 10 year contract. As of now there is no guarantee that it will be ratified.

I used to work in Air Services for UPS many moons ago. I still have friends that work there, some now in management. According to them, and take it with a grain of salt, the contract took priority the last few years by senior management and that the threat of strike was real and thus no major expenditures were to be allowed until resolved. The contract should be ratified barring the unforeseen. The union is backing it and so are most financial analyst and industry experts. Time will tell. With that said, those in the "know" have been told that once the contract is ratified that UPS would like to lock up some new orders for aircraft by years end or early next year. I agree that the A300's, which are the 2nd youngest of their fleet next to the 767, don't seem like a likely replacement. I wonder if my friend(s) got confused at which aircraft are do for replacement and which are staying. The 757 and MD-11 are the oldest of their fleet, with both having average age of 23 years,and definitely need to be replaced first.

wjcandee wrote:

It amazes me how many have opinions without an understanding of the basics. New means high depreciation (non-cash "expense" that lowers taxes), high capital cost, lower maintenance and these days usually lower fuel cost. Old means lower capital cost, lower depreciation, higher maintenance and higher fuel. (Pilot cost also used to be a factor, but with all operating 2-person cockpits now, no more.) Put in economic terms, that means new provides higher fixed cost, lower variable cost, while old means lower fixed cost, higher variable cost.

As a general rule, this means that if you are going to buy an aircraft that is planned to be in the air a lot of hours every, you go new. (The higher utilization means that the lower operating cost overtakes the higher fixed cost when you multiply by hours used; the lower total operating cost per month makes it worth the higher lease/loan monthly payment.) If you are buying an aircraft that is not planned to be used a lot of hours every day, then you buy used. (The lower utilization means that the lower fixed cost compensates for the higher variable cost when you multiply by hours used; the lower lease/loan monthly payment compensates for the higher total operating costs per month.)

ding ding ding!

We have the winner! This is exactly the reason. This is the exact reason the 727 soldiered on for so long as a cargo plane long after pax serviced had finished and it all comes down to the types of routes/ hours in the air each frame flies per day. Think of it like this. The lease payments on say a brand new 737-800 (i know there's no F version but it's a matter of time) in one year are going to be more than the entire purchase price of a 737-400 say 1980s build. so let's say this freight aircraft flies a routing like this. It starts mid evening after all the parcels arrive at city AAA. Let's say it departs 8 pm.

AAA - HUB(sorting) dep2000 arr 21.30.
parcels sorted for a few hrs to allow interstate connections for next morning delivery.
HUB - AAA depart 0230 arr 0400

Repeats pattern each business Day. (assume A check can be done daytime so 7 days utilisaiton)

Total weekly utilisation 21 hrs. (or around 80 hrs a month)

Now compare that with regular PAX service.
Qantas for example typically has a 738 Fleet utalisation of around 1200 hrs per day. Let's assume however as each aircraft needs an A check we only fly 6 days per week.

To give you an Example.

MEL - SYD 0600 - 7300 1.30 min
SYD - BNE 0830 - 1000 1.30 min
BNE - MEL 1110 - 1320 2 10 min
MEL - CBR 1415 - 1520 1 05 min
CBR - SYD 1605 - 1700 0 55 min
SYD - BNE 1830 - 20 00 1 30 min
BNE - DRW 2100 - 23 30 3 00 min (time zone change)

Total 11 Hrs 40 Mins. Multiple that by 6 days per week
and you're somewhere around 70 - 75 hrs per week. or around 300 hrs a month.

Lets assume they're both leased with a monthly lease payment of around $300K for the 738 and only about $45 K for the 733.
Thats about a $1000/flight hr to lease the 738.
And for the 734 about $560/flight hr.

Now fuel is typically around 30% of operating costs atm.
So if we had a huge fuel saving over the newer generation, say 20%, that would only translate into about a 6% reduction
in overall operating costs. Yet our capital costs are almost 50% cheaper per flight hour. Even more so If the cargo carrier
just bought the aircraft outright because it's old and cheap to acquire.

So if the 738 burns around 850 gal/hr (and lets assume its 20 percent less than the 734 - which is actually the md-80's figure the gap isn't as big for the 734)
Today's jet A1 price is USD1.30/gal or $1105/hr for the 738, or $1381.00 for the 734. A difference of about $275/hr.

Obviously there are other costs. But you can quickly see that a 738 flying 12 hrs a day would save about 3300 a day over the 734 if it were also flown 12 hrs a day.

So lets add Lease Cost


734 3 hrs x 1381 fuel ( 4131) plus capital cost per day 1500 = $5631
738 3 hrs x 1105 fuel ( 3315) plus capital cost per day 10 000 = 13315

Now this is obviously over simplifying things as the newer 738 will be cheaper on
maintenance not to mention as a bigger more powerful frame it will be able to
generate more revenue. Put you can see with today's oil price it there's a lot of
room to pay for extra fuel before the capital costs are worth it.

And this thinking explains airlines with older fully paid aircraft still operating. So when they
have Zero capital payment for them, even with more expensive maintenance if they're only
using them to boost peak extra capacity or on short routes where takeoff is the biggest part of
fuel consumption, unless oil prices increase drastically it is worth refurbishing them.

Stitch wrote:

Basefly wrote:

Rumor is that LH will be supplying a large number of A330 to DHL for conversion, that will be the current A300 replacement, the same source is saying that one large US carrier will be supplying B767's as the B757 replacement.

Is DHL planning a major expansion in freight carried? The A330-300 is a significantly large upgauge from the A300-600, as a 767-300 is for a 757-200.

The volumes are rising and you do not invest for the present, you invest for the future

Besides, It's not like there is a P2F A321 conversion option to replace the 757 or a direct A300 replacement.

LH group will as a whole have alot of used frames coming to market and DHL already being partners in the Aerologic business with LH, are more than happy to take them.

I just have not been able to find out what US airline will be donating so many B767's in the near future...

DHL might be looking to these as replacements for the AeroLogic 777F fleet. These have been rumoured to be heading for LH cargo, as MD-11F replacements. DHL need something that can fly to Asia during the week when their freight business requires it.

Basefly wrote:

Besides, It's not like there is a P2F A321 conversion option to replace the 757 or a direct A300 replacement.

Except that there is an A321 P2F-programme...

http://www.airbus.com/presscentre/press ... programme/

Cheers!

Channex757 wrote:

DHL might be looking to these as replacements for the AeroLogic 777F fleet. These have been rumoured to be heading for LH cargo, as MD-11F replacements. DHL need something that can fly to Asia during the week when their freight business requires it.

First of all, DHL (in Europe) are in the midst of replacing their current B757-200SF with B757-200PCF(w). These will be supplemented by the A306 fleet for intra-European lift.

The A333F does not have the legs for direct Asia flights from Europe, at least not with a decent payload. These are 61 tons / 8 hour aircraft, ideal to cross the Atlantic or to central Africa (LOS).

The only replacement for a B777F is another B777F. LH Cargo are hurting big time right now, and if anything they'll be winding down, not up gauging. Thus the 'rumours' of the B777F all going to LCAG, whilst having been floating around for years, have yet to make sense let alone materialise. If anything, DHL are the ones in a position to lay full claim to the aircraft, not LCAG.

Channex757 wrote:

DHL might be looking to these as replacements for the AeroLogic 777F fleet. These have been rumoured to be heading for LH cargo, as MD-11F replacements. DHL need something that can fly to Asia during the week when their freight business requires it.

DHL has Polar and Kalitta 747s doing Europe to Asia runs just about every day. The 748s can do LEJ-ICN/LEJ-HKG and so forth nonstop, while the 744s will hit BAH or DEL first.

Basefly wrote:

Rumor is that LH will be supplying a large number of A330 to DHL for conversion, that will be the current A300 replacement, the same source is saying that one large US carrier will be supplying B767's as the B757 replacement.

Hard to believe as Lufthansa´s A330 are brand new and they have no longhaul fleet to spare. They will soon receive their first A350 but they are supposed to replace the A340-300/-600.
Also I don´t believe that DHL will replace their 757s with 767s.

flyDTW1992 wrote:

Channex757 wrote:

DHL might be looking to these as replacements for the AeroLogic 777F fleet. These have been rumoured to be heading for LH cargo, as MD-11F replacements. DHL need something that can fly to Asia during the week when their freight business requires it.

DHL has Polar and Kalitta 747s doing Europe to Asia runs just about every day. The 748s can do LEJ-ICN/LEJ-HKG and so forth nonstop, while the 744s will hit BAH or DEL first.

Aren't most of those routes from Polar and Kalitta hopping between hubs? I know many flights stop at Dubai, Bahrain and Delhi. Only Aerologic I think fly nonstop to HKG. Polar nonstop with a 747/748 to ICN.

I haven't looked lately at their routes but does Aerologic tag on ICN from another Asian city? edit I see Aerologic fly LEJ-ICN-HKG-LEJ

These A330's would be a good replacement for Air Hong Kong's 747BCF's.

KarelXWB wrote:

deltal1011man wrote:

why exactly is fuel burn "much" higher on a used 333 vs a new 333?
(don't forgot, you can't even buy a new 333F)

Converted freighters are usually heavier than new build freighters.

and I agree with that.

but again, since the only way to get a 333F is to convert, what is going to make fuel burn "much" higher for a new build (i.e. buying a PAX 333 and getting it from Airbus tomorrow then converting it) compared to an older 333.

I'm sure the 330 has seen some marginal fuel burn reductions(even though most of the times these advances can be added to an older airframe/engine) but I don't see or know of anything that is going to make the fuel burn "much" higher.

b747400erf wrote:

These A330's would be a good replacement for Air Hong Kong's 747BCF's.

Not if those BCFs are carrying a decent payload, which I'd imagine they are given DHL's volume thru HKG. You'd need two A330s for each BCF.

As per Flug-Revue the contract is for four A330s. Planned for a payload of 61 tons with 26 pallet spaces.

SpaceshipDC10 wrote:

Cool. Can't wait to see it. Do we know the origin of the bird?

CARST wrote:

So while UPS and FedEx keep ordering new planes, DHL keeps buying 20 year old used frames and converts them into freighters. Sound like a huge disadvantage on operating costs, I can only hope they kind of make it up again with help of the cheap aquisition costs.

It's not like FedEx or UPS have only operated brand new aircraft.

They CERTAINLY HAVE NOT. The B767's were Not in availability until recently, Especially the -300's, DHL is making a smart move in converting the A330 as long as they have the freight to carry. Parts should be readily available. As they will fly mainly overnight Point to point then having nearly all day to maintain them should be doable.
They could segment their 'A' checks and do them over the course of a week with 2-3 guys. Having Brand New airplanes is not necessary, but you will pay the cost in reliability
for whatever shortcomings the previous carrier might have had.

deltal1011man wrote:

KarelXWB wrote:

deltal1011man wrote:

why exactly is fuel burn "much" higher on a used 333 vs a new 333?
(don't forgot, you can't even buy a new 333F)

Converted freighters are usually heavier than new build freighters.

and I agree with that.

but again, since the only way to get a 333F is to convert, what is going to make fuel burn "much" higher for a new build (i.e. buying a PAX 333 and getting it from Airbus tomorrow then converting it) compared to an older 333.

I'm sure the 330 has seen some marginal fuel burn reductions(even though most of the times these advances can be added to an older airframe/engine) but I don't see or know of anything that is going to make the fuel burn "much" higher.

On the 747 BCF the fuel burn was up to 5% higher than a new build 747F; 5% is considered to be "much" higher.

That said, we do not have any numbers on the A330 P2F.

KarelXWB wrote:

deltal1011man wrote:

KarelXWB wrote:

Converted freighters are usually heavier than new build freighters.

and I agree with that.

but again, since the only way to get a 333F is to convert, what is going to make fuel burn "much" higher for a new build (i.e. buying a PAX 333 and getting it from Airbus tomorrow then converting it) compared to an older 333.

I'm sure the 330 has seen some marginal fuel burn reductions(even though most of the times these advances can be added to an older airframe/engine) but I don't see or know of anything that is going to make the fuel burn "much" higher.

On the 747 BCF the fuel burn was up to 5% higher than a new build 747F; 5% is considered to be "much" higher.

That said, we do not have any numbers on the A330 P2F.

747 is a bit of an anomaly in that it has a large structural difference in its large upper deck. Lots of dead weight.

Basefly wrote:

Besides, It's not like there is a P2F A321 conversion option to replace the 757 or a direct A300 replacement.

'The 763F is actually a very good A300F replacement (not that I am expecting DHL to order new 763Fs to replace the A300s).

Polot wrote:

Basefly wrote:

Besides, It's not like there is a P2F A321 conversion option to replace the 757 or a direct A300 replacement.

'The 763F is actually a very good A300F replacement (not that I am expecting DHL to order new 763Fs to replace the A300s).

They could, they've already shown they like the 767 by ordering new ones in the past.

CARST wrote:

n729pa wrote:

But MX costs will be higher and fuel consumption will be much higher, too.

Flying old planes IMO is always a gamble for fuel prices staying low.

I do not expect a 767F to beat out a A330 P2F in fuel per ton of load.

Do we know which carrier is going to supply the 767s to DHL?

It is interesting to see DHL buy used frames as the tendency of FEDEX and UPS as of late has been to buy new frames. Utilization and how a company uses its assets can mean very different decision making. It used to be that cargo was almost always flown on a workhorse of a bygone era! Now even new small cargo carriers are getting shiny new 747-8s. Time marches on and who would have thought that cargo carriers would be buying used A330s and new 767s in 2016!!!! Do we have any insight into how DHL's allegiance with LH and available A330 lift lead to this decision?

It would be nice for some uniformity at DHL. Every time I am at JFK their 767s or 757s are there in hybrid schemes!