Most of the stored Federal Express aircraft require a lot of maintenance (stored just before a mandatory HMV ?) to become active again, so re-activation will take some time.
Depending how many passenger aircraft (belly cargo) will be grounded, the need for additional freighter aircraft may be shortlived.

I saw the title and said out loud "WHAT?"

Then I saw it was 7 months old. Demand for freighters is crazy high. I'm sure the recently retired aircraft will be entering service as quickly as possible.

747classic wrote:

Most of the stored Federal Express aircraft require a lot of maintenance (stored just before a mandatory HMV ?) to become active again, so re-activation will take some time.
Depending how many passenger aircraft (belly cargo) will be grounded, the need for additional freighter aircraft may be shortlived.

Many trans-Pacific and trans-Atlantic pax flights are cancelled until June, some even until October. Many seasonal summer pax trans-Atlantic flights are not going to happen at all. Belly cargo space will definitely be depressed. Demands have also dropped somewhat as no one would be in a mood to buy non-essential items now. But drop of belly cargo space definitely is more than the drop in demand.

In fact, Fedex can no longer guarantee delivery for international courier. Typically, a priority shipment from East Asia to North America takes 3 to 4 days. I just sent something two weeks ago. It did not get onto the flight out until the 4th day. Then it took 4 more days to traverse through Osaka and then Memphis. So total it took 8 days. Post offices in Asia no longer accept air mail and courier to US and Canada since there is no flight. Fedex, UPS and DHL are now the lifeline for any shipment and even letters between Asia and North America.

Fedex is also charging a surcharge now for trans-Pacific courier, so it's not like they are not making a profit out of deploying additional capacity. I think they can definitely put any parked MD11 or even MD10 back online for a few months.

raylee67 wrote:

747classic wrote:

Most of the stored Federal Express aircraft require a lot of maintenance (stored just before a mandatory HMV ?) to become active again, so re-activation will take some time.
Depending how many passenger aircraft (belly cargo) will be grounded, the need for additional freighter aircraft may be shortlived.

Many trans-Pacific and trans-Atlantic pax flights are cancelled until June, some even until October. Many seasonal summer pax trans-Atlantic flights are not going to happen at all. Belly cargo space will definitely be depressed. Demands have also dropped somewhat as no one would be in a mood to buy non-essential items now. But drop of belly cargo space definitely is more than the drop in demand.

In fact, Fedex can no longer guarantee delivery for international courier. Typically, a priority shipment from East Asia to North America takes 3 to 4 days. I just sent something two weeks ago. It did not get onto the flight out until the 4th day. Then it took 4 more days to traverse through Osaka and then Memphis. So total it took 8 days. Post offices in Asia no longer accept air mail and courier to US and Canada since there is no flight. Fedex, UPS and DHL are now the lifeline for any shipment and even letters between Asia and North America.

Fedex is also charging a surcharge now for trans-Pacific courier, so it's not like they are not making a profit out of deploying additional capacity. I think they can definitely put any parked MD11 or even MD10 back online for a few months.

Noticed the same thing. I don't know how FX planes are stored, so no idea how long it takes to get them back into the air.
But, anything that can be deployed before the summer is worth it. These disruption in passenger travel will continue at least until 2021.
And it remains to be seen which carriers will still exist by then. So with little supply in belly freight capacity, freighters will be more than welcome.

Furthermore, online ordering is at an all time high because of the Corona virus.
This also means extra business for FX, UPS and DHL.

I see mostly the A300s and MD-11s as likely to be re-activated, and maybe a younger DC-10-30, but I doubt any DC-10-10s will be reactivated.

MD Douglas MD-11 (F) 48476 510 N522FE FedEx ferried 17apr20 MEM-VCV for storage ex N805DE

Douglas DC-10 MD‑10‑10(F) 46613 42 N375FE FedEx feried 10apr20 MEM-VCV for storage ex N1814U

https://www.skyliner-aviation.de/regdb. ... av4&page=4

danipawa wrote:

MD Douglas MD-11 (F) 48476 510 N522FE FedEx ferried 17apr20 MEM-VCV for storage ex N805DE

Douglas DC-10 MD‑10‑10(F) 46613 42 N375FE FedEx feried 10apr20 MEM-VCV for storage ex N1814U

https://www.skyliner-aviation.de/regdb. ... av4&page=4

Yes, as I mentioned upthread that MD-10 was pretty much out of cycles.

Counterpoint form your same source:

Airbus A300 F4‑605R 789 N675FE FedEx ferried 14apr20 VCV-GSO, for paint prior rtn to svc ex F-WWAZ

Reactivating this bird can free up a 767 on a domestic route to use internationally.

Could 767's that will be converted to freighters get a partial conversion now, removal of the seats, bins, and lavs and the addition of the smoke & fire systems of the freighter to get it out there soon, then finish the conversion cutting in the door etc at a later date?

N675FE is in GSO for C check, was placed in short term storage due to CAN shut down. A300 C checks have been done in BFM & CAN. FDX aircraft are painted in ARA. The MD10-10 are retiring as checks come due as planned to retire the fleet by June 2021. Should be down to 9 by end June 2020. The flight schedule was reduce this past week, lots of spare aircraft especially the 757. 1 A300 N728FD stored & 5 757 stored N776FD N777FD N779FD since last year & N921FD N957FD recently. PW powered MD11 going to VCV retired, N607FE should come back this summer once it gets a C check & gear. The 4 LH purchased MD11 N646FE-N649FE were originally going to get standardized & painted, now parting out.

Looking at the Victorville departures for today, a FedEx MD11 went to LAX, UAL moved a 789 back to SFO, and Air Canada moved a 788 to YVR.

More cargo capacity coming back from desert parking??

FlyingElvii wrote:

Looking at the Victorville departures for today, a FedEx MD11 went to LAX, UAL moved a 789 back to SFO, and Air Canada moved a 788 to YVR.

More cargo capacity coming back from desert parking??

The UAL B789 and ACA B788 left after painting in to the new liveries.

danipawa wrote:

MD Douglas MD-11 (F) 48476 510 N522FE FedEx ferried 17apr20 MEM-VCV for storage ex N805DE

Douglas DC-10 MD‑10‑10(F) 46613 42 N375FE FedEx feried 10apr20 MEM-VCV for storage ex N1814U

https://www.skyliner-aviation.de/regdb. ... av4&page=4

Wow..... they got every last ounce out of that old UAL DC-10, didn't they?
This brings back memories for me. As N1814U, I remember clearly that she flew our whole family from LAX-IAD in early '83 when I was a young pup. Dad had business at the Pentagon, and sent us on a tour of D.C. Went to the FBI building (saw John Dillinger's death mask), the Washington Monument, Lincoln and Jefferson Memorials, the Smithsonian, the National Archives, and the Capitol.

It's sort of a weird feeling to know that I'm growing old, Dad is gone, and this aircraft has been plying the skies ever since....

The other memorable thing about the trip is that on the return leg we flew a new UAL 767, and landed so incredibly hard that a bunch of overhead luggage bins came open, along with a few oxygen masks falling down!

JayinKitsap wrote:

Could 767's that will be converted to freighters get a partial conversion now, removal of the seats, bins, and lavs and the addition of the smoke & fire systems of the freighter to get it out there soon, then finish the conversion cutting in the door etc at a later date?

They could, but as FedEx like to containerise their freight moving loads between aircraft would become time consuming. The positive about containers is speed in loading and unloading aircraft and moving containers onto different aircraft with speed. Having a few 'odd balls' in their fleet could throw their logistical way of working out the window. Reactivating stored frames would be the quicker and easiest option to provide additional uplift in capacity to the fleet.

Any market for such bulk loaded freight movements on pax airliners has already been consumed by the passenger airlines.

JayinKitsap wrote:

Could 767's that will be converted to freighters get a partial conversion now, removal of the seats, bins, and lavs and the addition of the smoke & fire systems of the freighter to get it out there soon, then finish the conversion cutting in the door etc at a later date?

Also worth noting FedEx is not buy used 767s at the moment. These are new from the Boeing factory (*there are two used 76s in the fleet).

MD Douglas MD-11 (F) 48551 527 N593FE FedEx posn 18apr20 VCV-LAX after storage ex N1761R

Moosefire wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

Could 767's that will be converted to freighters get a partial conversion now, removal of the seats, bins, and lavs and the addition of the smoke & fire systems of the freighter to get it out there soon, then finish the conversion cutting in the door etc at a later date?

Also worth noting FedEx is not buy used 767s at the moment. These are new from the Boeing factory (*there are two used 76s in the fleet).

I dont think FX operates any converted 767s at all now, right? I think the only "oddballs" may have been factory 767Fs built for someone else, but no conversions. It's the Amazon operators that are big on the conversions.

Revelation wrote:

Moosefire wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

Could 767's that will be converted to freighters get a partial conversion now, removal of the seats, bins, and lavs and the addition of the smoke & fire systems of the freighter to get it out there soon, then finish the conversion cutting in the door etc at a later date?

Also worth noting FedEx is not buy used 767s at the moment. These are new from the Boeing factory (*there are two used 76s in the fleet).

I dont think FX operates any converted 767s at all now, right? I think the only "oddballs" may have been factory 767Fs built for someone else, but no conversions. It's the Amazon operators that are big on the conversions.

I should have been clearer with my question, I was talking about any operator not just FedEx. I am aware they fly only new builds (except for the 2 which I didn't know about). Yes harder to load without the large door, but with the smoke and fire systems wouldn't need to have the aisles open and cabin crew.

The world needs a lot of freighter capacity at the moment, and will until belly freight comes back even to half. Once things calm down, finish the conversion.

Does this mean the ex LH MD-11 will be flown?

Slightly off-topic here, but does anyone know as to what prompts FX to retire the PW MD-11 examples, whereas, maintaining the GE birds in active duty?

It's no surprise that during the past couple of years, FX has been sending/sent a couple of their MD11 frames to VCV which seems to mainly consist of PW examples, including the recently retired frame which was aforementioned in the thread. It has also been a recent case, where FX has also sent some GE powered frames down the VCV line as well.

Moreover, the GE frames which were sent to the desert, if not, all managed to fly back in one piece. In contrast however, the Pratt powered frames which were sent to the desert, seems to be snoozing off for a while now, waiting to fulfil their role as scrap metal for now.

The retired A300s frames are nonetheless, following the same trend.

BOEING777EK wrote:

Slightly off-topic here, but does anyone know as to what prompts FX to retire the PW MD-11 examples, whereas, maintaining the GE birds in active duty?

It's no surprise that during the past couple of years, FX has been sending/sent a couple of their MD11 frames to VCV which seems to mainly consist of PW examples, including the recently retired frame which was aforementioned in the thread. It has also been a recent case, where FX has also sent some GE powered frames down the VCV line as well.

Moreover, the GE frames which were sent to the desert, if not, all managed to fly back in one piece. In contrast however, the Pratt powered frames which were sent to the desert, seems to be snoozing off for a while now, waiting to fulfil their role as scrap metal for now.

The retired A300s frames are nonetheless, following the same trend.

It's likely about being able to eventually eliminate the PW4000 from the fleet. All the new-build A300s and 767s have CF6s, while all but three of the used A300s have Pratts (the three GE frames, coincidentally, are the youngest of the used A300s). With the MD11s, it then makes the most sense to retire the Pratt frames first for that reason. The MD11 isn't going away completely in the near term, and there isn't a major age spread to the fleet, so engine type is a useful differentiator when deciding which frames to keep or retire. When the time comes, it'll be interesting to see how the 757 fleet gets retired, given that it's a mix of RB211 and PW2000 frames.

A quick update. Skyliner reports another MD-10-10 headed to retirement. https://www.skyliner-aviation.de/regdb. ... av4&page=4

N394FE, LN 207. Close to 98,000 hours and 38,000 cycles on her.

Spacepope wrote:

According to https://www.skyliner-aviation.de/regdb. ... av4&page=4 MD-10-10 SN 17 has been sent to VCV for scrapping.

N368FE totals of 90150 hours and 38811 cycles as of last June. That's a LOT of cycles.

Wow.

While the DC-10 is certified for 60,000 FC and 160,000 FH, that is one worn bird.

https://www.boeing.com/commercial/aerom ... 2012_q4/2/

I find it facinating that is more cycles than currently allowed on the 777F. Note aircraft often have the LOV extended. For example the A320 was 48k flight cycles (FC), 60k flight hours (FH) and is now, with minor structure doublers, 60k flight cycles, 120k flight hours. The CRJ-7/9 went from 60k FC/90k FH to 80k FC/120k FH.

For reference, that is more flight cycles than most Airbus widebodies are certified for.

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

Spacepope wrote:

According to https://www.skyliner-aviation.de/regdb. ... av4&page=4 MD-10-10 SN 17 has been sent to VCV for scrapping.

N368FE totals of 90150 hours and 38811 cycles as of last June. That's a LOT of cycles.

Wow.

While the DC-10 is certified for 60,000 FC and 160,000 FH, that is one worn bird.

https://www.boeing.com/commercial/aerom ... 2012_q4/2/

I find it facinating that is more cycles than currently allowed on the 777F. Note aircraft often have the LOV extended. For example the A320 was 48k flight cycles (FC), 60k flight hours (FH) and is now, with minor structure doublers, 60k flight cycles, 120k flight hours. The CRJ-7/9 went from 60k FC/90k FH to 80k FC/120k FH.

For reference, that is more flight cycles than most Airbus widebodies are certified for.

Lightsaber

If I remember correctly, several of the earlier MD-10-10s were retired with cycles in the low-40K range. Fedex, back when they were in the Amazon volume binge, put several MD-10s through heavy checks when they were originally slated for retirement adding onto these impressive cycle counts. This frame had its last heavy check (based on SDRS) about 2 years ago so it was retired as things timed out again for it, though it technically could be pushed on. FX seems to be trying to get rif of the CF-6-6 though, since they are the sole operator of that engine type anymore.

For truly impressive cycle counts, check out the 767-281BDSF that Atlas and ATSG are using. A few have been run right up to the 50,000FC mark, truly earning their keep.

lightsaber wrote:

Spacepope wrote:

According to https://www.skyliner-aviation.de/regdb. ... av4&page=4 MD-10-10 SN 17 has been sent to VCV for scrapping.

N368FE totals of 90150 hours and 38811 cycles as of last June. That's a LOT of cycles.

Wow.

While the DC-10 is certified for 60,000 FC and 160,000 FH, that is one worn bird.

https://www.boeing.com/commercial/aerom ... 2012_q4/2/

I find it facinating that is more cycles than currently allowed on the 777F. Note aircraft often have the LOV extended. For example the A320 was 48k flight cycles (FC), 60k flight hours (FH) and is now, with minor structure doublers, 60k flight cycles, 120k flight hours. The CRJ-7/9 went from 60k FC/90k FH to 80k FC/120k FH.

For reference, that is more flight cycles than most Airbus widebodies are certified for.

Lightsaber

They don't build them like that anymore. All of the McDonnell Douglas aircraft were designed to last.

What is the 'provenance' of the MD-10 being required, what airlines did it operate for? Any info appreciated, thanks in advance.

jscottwomack wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

Spacepope wrote:

According to https://www.skyliner-aviation.de/regdb. ... av4&page=4 MD-10-10 SN 17 has been sent to VCV for scrapping.

N368FE totals of 90150 hours and 38811 cycles as of last June. That's a LOT of cycles.

Wow.

While the DC-10 is certified for 60,000 FC and 160,000 FH, that is one worn bird.

https://www.boeing.com/commercial/aerom ... 2012_q4/2/

I find it facinating that is more cycles than currently allowed on the 777F. Note aircraft often have the LOV extended. For example the A320 was 48k flight cycles (FC), 60k flight hours (FH) and is now, with minor structure doublers, 60k flight cycles, 120k flight hours. The CRJ-7/9 went from 60k FC/90k FH to 80k FC/120k FH.

For reference, that is more flight cycles than most Airbus widebodies are certified for.

Lightsaber

They don't build them like that anymore. All of the McDonnell Douglas aircraft were designed to last.

Admittedly a slight aside, though, based on my interpretation of what is being provided - a discussion of 'built to last' (in one generation of aircraft), and then coming to the 777F (which is to replace them in future). Has the 777F had the "LOV extended"? If it can, what would be some of the expectation of the FC/FH?

Backing to the 'they don't build them like that anymore' - what was changed in the way that the aircraft was built? I ask, because - I would like greater insight to what the new need was, and/or from an engineering perspective how they created (and even plan to enhance/correct, going forward) the issue. Pardon my ignorance, past a sophomoric understanding of the issue, I would just like to have a clearer view of it.

Rajahdhani wrote:

jscottwomack wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

Wow.

While the DC-10 is certified for 60,000 FC and 160,000 FH, that is one worn bird.

https://www.boeing.com/commercial/aerom ... 2012_q4/2/

I find it facinating that is more cycles than currently allowed on the 777F. Note aircraft often have the LOV extended. For example the A320 was 48k flight cycles (FC), 60k flight hours (FH) and is now, with minor structure doublers, 60k flight cycles, 120k flight hours. The CRJ-7/9 went from 60k FC/90k FH to 80k FC/120k FH.

For reference, that is more flight cycles than most Airbus widebodies are certified for.

Lightsaber

They don't build them like that anymore. All of the McDonnell Douglas aircraft were designed to last.

Admittedly a slight aside, though, based on my interpretation of what is being provided - a discussion of 'built to last' (in one generation of aircraft), and then coming to the 777F (which is to replace them in future). Has the 777F had the "LOV extended"? If it can, what would be some of the expectation of the FC/FH?

Backing to the 'they don't build them like that anymore' - what was changed in the way that the aircraft was built? I ask, because - I would like greater insight to what the new need was, and/or from an engineering perspective how they created (and even plan to enhance/correct, going forward) the issue. Pardon my ignorance, past a sophomoric understanding of the issue, I would just like to have a clearer view of it.

All Douglas aircraft were "over engineered " : actualy they were structurally a little bit heavier (1000lbs over weight), but very few structural AD's were needed during the aircraft's live, compared to Boeing aircraft built in the same time frame. The cycle LOV was also higher than comparable Boeing aircraft.

At the 777F the MZFW and MLW are increased compared to all other 777 series, conseq, the wear and tear of the airframe and the LOV has been reduced from 60.000 to 37.500 cycles.

Interesting to see how the old 732 compared to the DC9

While the Boeing’s were often a patchwork of, well skin reinforcing patches very few of those were seen on the -9s


Most prominent example of this was Aloha’s 732 and its catastrophic structural failure, Hawaiian’s DC9 aircraft seemed to hold up a lot better, as do their 717’s today

mcg wrote:

What is the 'provenance' of the MD-10 being required, what airlines did it operate for? Any info appreciated, thanks in advance.

The MD-10 was a joint development between FedEx and McDonnell Douglas. Its two-person glass cockpit configuration allows for a common type rating with the MD-11. FedEx is the only commercial operator. The Project Orbis flying hospital is an MD-10.

Max Q wrote:

Interesting to see how the old 732 compared to the DC9

While the Boeing’s were often a patchwork of, well skin reinforcing patches very few of those were seen on the -9s


Most prominent example of this was Aloha’s 732 and its catastrophic structural failure, Hawaiian’s DC9 aircraft seemed to hold up a lot better, as do their 717’s today

That was an early example though, flown in a saltwater environment...constructed a different way than those line number 292 and later were built. It only had about 35,000 hours on it, but over almost 90,000 flights. Then again, it had an engine that could take quick cycles and restarts. Hence why the B732s and DC-9s were used on intra-island services so long...the B712s replaced the DC93s at HA. HA would need a larger fleet to adequately replace the B712, especially on shuttle routes like HNL-OGG, and would probably need to lease a fleet rather than buy, likely on a 12-year lease, if a model smaller than the A21N (like the BCS1/3 or the E290/5) would do such on a regular basis.

Back to FX, I have to wonder why FX would part out the ex-LH (GEC) MD-11s, when 5X and KD are flying their ex-LH (GEC) MD-11s. These are all GE frames while the ones FX wants out are the PW frames.

MO11 wrote:

mcg wrote:

What is the 'provenance' of the MD-10 being required, what airlines did it operate for? Any info appreciated, thanks in advance.

The MD-10 was a joint development between FedEx and McDonnell Douglas. Its two-person glass cockpit configuration allows for a common type rating with the MD-11. FedEx is the only commercial operator. The Project Orbis flying hospital is an MD-10.

Thanks, I am actually interested in what airline or airlines this particular aircraft flew for. It probably had a pretty interesting life.

mcg wrote:

What is the 'provenance' of the MD-10 being required, what airlines did it operate for? Any info appreciated, thanks in advance.

If this is something that interests you you’ll love the site http://www.airfleets.net! As for 394FE it started its career with United in 1975 and transitioned to FedEx in 2001.

lightsaber wrote:

Spacepope wrote:

According to https://www.skyliner-aviation.de/regdb. ... av4&page=4 MD-10-10 SN 17 has been sent to VCV for scrapping.

N368FE totals of 90150 hours and 38811 cycles as of last June. That's a LOT of cycles.

Wow.

While the DC-10 is certified for 60,000 FC and 160,000 FH, that is one worn bird.

https://www.boeing.com/commercial/aerom ... 2012_q4/2/

I find it facinating that is more cycles than currently allowed on the 777F. Note aircraft often have the LOV extended. For example the A320 was 48k flight cycles (FC), 60k flight hours (FH) and is now, with minor structure doublers, 60k flight cycles, 120k flight hours. The CRJ-7/9 went from 60k FC/90k FH to 80k FC/120k FH.

For reference, that is more flight cycles than most Airbus widebodies are certified for.

Lightsaber

DC and later MD made plenty of poor decisions. There ability to build stout workhorses that can live for eternity was legendary and not something emulated today. Wish that "engineering" prowess could have lived on.

Spacepope wrote:

747classic wrote:

MD11F N607FE has been ferried to Victorville for storage at Feb 5th, see : https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/n607fe
MD11(F) N578FE has been ferried to Victorville for storage at Feb 6th, see : https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/n578fe

Note : UPS seems to have a need for more capacity and added to late built ex. Lufthansa MD-11F aircraft (L/N 645 and 646) to become active (not for spare parts).

From the FAA SDR reporting site:

N607FE 84,720 hours and 20,446 cycles as of last July
N578FE 75,396 hours and 20,610 cycles as of last August

Spring chickens.

https://www.skyliner-aviation.de/regdb. ... av4&page=4

An update: N607FE just ferried VCV-ANC-NRT. Return to service or headed to Asia for heavy MX?

Updated stats as of Feb 2020: 85963 hours, 20854 cycles. Looks like last heavy check was in Jan 2018.