Why Does FedEx Use 727s?

ssflyboy25 · Sun Jul 15, 2007 4:04 am

seems to me like fed ex uses a large amount of 727's in there fleet. Whats the advatage of them in a cargo use?

whappeh · Sun Jul 15, 2007 4:23 am

Probably the fact that they're all paid for.

trekster · Sun Jul 15, 2007 4:34 am

There a good aircraft i guess, hence why they use them.

DC8's are still used as cargo, even some props.

If its good, use em

Glad fedex do use them, brill aircraft

fxramper · Sun Jul 15, 2007 5:04 am

Quoting Ssflyboy25 (Thread starter):

There are many cities that don't warrant anything more than a 727.

The remaining a/c will be retired by this fall.

ORDZW · Sun Jul 15, 2007 5:07 am

The 727 is a very sturdy aircraft. Back when they flew commercially, they were able to take pretty much any load without going overweight. This is why almost all major carriers flew them at some point - AA, DL, NW, UA, etc... If they weren't so expensive to operate, I am sure you would still see them flying commercial routes.

So, after a sturdy aircraft is retired from commercial service, it makes sense to stuff them full of cargo!

memphis · Sun Jul 15, 2007 5:22 am

Quoting FXramper (Reply 3):
The remaining a/c will be retired by this fall.

HOLD UP THERE! While the last 727-100 has indeed just been retired, I HIGHLY DOUBT that the remaining FX 727-200 fleet will be retired by this fall. I do not see that happening. We have yet to receive our first operational 757. From what I hear, FX has been trying to retire the three holer since the 1990s. It is an absolutely incredible airplane, and yes, from what I understand paid for. They are the work-horse of the fleet, sometimes doing 3-4 legs as oppossed to one leg out and back. I predict that FX will have 727s on the property till 2020. Just my two cents.

Viscount724 · Sun Jul 15, 2007 5:24 am

Quoting ORDZW (Reply 4):
So, after a sturdy aircraft is retired from commercial service, it makes sense to stuff them full of cargo!

The last 15 727s built were all 727-200F freighters for FedEx. They're younger than quite a few 757s and 767s. This is the very last 727 built, delivered to FedEx September 18, 1984:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Matthew Wallman

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Royal S King

Ncfc99 · Sun Jul 15, 2007 6:29 am

This is a question that has often bugged me.

If a 727 is too expensive to operate as a passenger aircraft, why does it make a good freighter? The same goes for MD11, A300 etc.The pax aircraft were all retired in favour of 737, 320, 757 etc. Why do passenger airlines have to have ecconomical aircraft but parcel carriers do not?

nosedive · Sun Jul 15, 2007 6:54 am

Quoting Ncfc99 (Reply 7):
Why do passenger airlines have to have ecconomical aircraft but parcel carriers do not?

Cheaper to acquire and usually fly less. Freight probably has better revenue, as PAX weight will vary, and you can fill freight to the gills. Plus, boxes don't complain.

Viscount724 · Sun Jul 15, 2007 6:54 am

Quoting Ncfc99 (Reply 7):
If a 727 is too expensive to operate as a passenger aircraft, why does it make a good freighter? The same goes for MD11, A300 etc.The pax aircraft were all retired in favour of 737, 320, 757 etc. Why do passenger airlines have to have ecconomical aircraft but parcel carriers do not?

One reason is that many freighters only fly 3 or 4 hours a day, especially on domestic routes in the USA, so fuel costs and the added cost of the 3-crew cockpit are smaller factors than for passenger carriers where the aircraft would probably be flying 12 hours a day.

pizzaandplanes · Sun Jul 15, 2007 6:54 am

Quoting ORDZW (Reply 4):
retired from commercial service

Absolutely not true. Pan Am clipper connection still operates a 727 that passengers can fly on. This service is not well known though. http://www.flypanam.com/fleet.html

trekster · Sun Jul 15, 2007 7:01 am

Quoting Pizzaandplanes (Reply 10):

And from stuff i have heard here and from other sites, the service is very bad, and at times does not even run.

Max Q · Sun Jul 15, 2007 8:04 am

I can give you another reason they still fly it.

Speed.

There simply is not another narrowbody aircraft made today that can come close to the top speed of a 727.

When time is tight that aircraft can really make up time.

Fed Ex can afford the fuel!

pikachu · Sun Jul 15, 2007 9:24 am

I can give you another reason they still fly it.

Speed.

There simply is not another narrowbody aircraft made today that can come close to the top speed of a 727.

When time is tight that aircraft can really make up time.

Fed Ex can afford the fuel!

If operating domestic flights (ie. short) the speed of the 727 will only give an advantage of mere minutes. The fuel burned to gain those minutes comes at extreme cost.

XT6Wagon · Sun Jul 15, 2007 9:32 am

The 727 has very very good short field performance, and as such you can't exactly replace them with 737 at some airports.... 757 are a different story but given the demand for them right now, its hardly an option to fly planes you can't get.

beechnut · Sun Jul 15, 2007 9:49 am

How many of the ex-Air Canada birds do they still fly? I seem to recall that AC sold almost their entire 727 fleet to FedEx when they acquired the A320s.

I miss the 727s!

Beech

jhooper · Sun Jul 15, 2007 10:27 am

Quoting Ncfc99 (Reply 7):
If a 727 is too expensive to operate as a passenger aircraft, why does it make a good freighter? The same goes for MD11, A300 etc.The pax aircraft were all retired in favour of 737, 320, 757 etc. Why do passenger airlines have to have ecconomical aircraft but parcel carriers do not?

I really don't know why FedEx would choose to use aircraft which are more expensive to operate, but it probably affects their bottom line less than it would a pax carrier. There's big money to be made in cargo ops. Think about it this way. Let's say I would be willing to pay $20 to ship a 1 lb package overnight from Tennessee to Texas. You'd made $3600 off 180 lbs of cargo. Few people are willing to pay $3600 to ship themselves (at 180 lbs) the same distance. So can you see just how much more $$$ per pound of cargo you could bring in?

access-air · Sun Jul 15, 2007 10:46 am

Quoting Nosedive (Reply 8):
Cheaper to acquire and usually fly less. Freight probably has better revenue, as PAX weight will vary, and you can fill freight to the gills. Plus, boxes don't complain.

You summed it al up right here!!!!!!!

Access-Air

pikachu · Sun Jul 15, 2007 10:47 am

The 727 has very very good short field performance, and as such you can't exactly replace them with 737 at some airports.... 757 are a different story but given the demand for them right now, its hardly an option to fly planes you can't get.

Fedex essentially needs 10% of the world's 757 fleet and what Fedex wants Fedex gets.

G5 · Sun Jul 15, 2007 11:03 am

Is it simply a matter of fuel costs, or is it more than that? If it were an issue of fuel, why didn't more airlines (cargo or otherwise) choose to re-engine the 727s with the RR Tay platform like UPS did with their -100s? There are obvious advantages to having the RR vs. Pratt engines onboard, but does it ultimately come down to the overall economics (extra crewmember, wear and tear, fuel, bad reliability, etc) that did this aircraft in? I worked for UPS and loaded both -200s and the re-engined -100s and it was a night and day difference between the two aircraft.

It's just a shame to see so many of these birds lying in the desert sun waiting for the scrapping crane. What ever happened to UPS' 727-100s with the Tay engines? Were any sold off and flown by someone else?

ups757 · Sun Jul 15, 2007 11:27 am

By Mid-October 2007 - UPS will be out of the 727 business. All aircraft will be put into storage.

brucek · Sun Jul 15, 2007 11:33 am

Quoting G5 (Reply 19):
.....If it were an issue of fuel, why didn't more airlines (cargo or otherwise) choose to re-engine the 727s.....

I recall back in the late '70's / early '80's Boeing researched the possibility of re-engining the 72's at the request of the airlines. After some time of diligent research, Boeing announced that this would not be feasible. I recall that the B75 was on the drawing board at the time (which became the replacement for the 72).

Of course Boeing stood to make a lot more from a whole new production line, but there may have also been other issues. With a/c that have aft-fuselage mounted engines, the CG becomes an issue bery quick as the mass of the engine increases (look at what MD had to do to the MD90 fuselage).

Some current B72's have a later P&W engine for #1 and #3 from the MD80 era, with increased thrust and added fuel economy. I have not ever seen a Tay engined 72, but donlt dispute that they exist.

Bruce.

TUNisia · Sun Jul 15, 2007 12:00 pm

FedEx still uses them here into PVD... as does DHL. My favorite "old" aircraft is the 727 .. so it's a joy to still seem them.

HAWK21M · Sun Jul 15, 2007 12:15 pm

Quoting Ssflyboy25 (Thread starter):
Whats the advatage of them in a cargo use

Cheaper.
Availability.
Stores Inventory savings.
regds
MEL

DAL1044 · Sun Jul 15, 2007 1:25 pm

Well its not Fed Ex but here is a link to the picture of the RR Tay Powered UPS 727

https://www.airliners.net/open.file/0162405/M/

[Edited 2007-07-15 06:26:59]

fxramper · Sun Jul 15, 2007 1:43 pm

Quoting Memphis (Reply 5):
I predict that FX will have 727s on the property till 2020

I read a memo from fleet management. They aren't as economical as they once were. They won't last past Q1 2008.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 12):
Fed Ex can afford the fuel!

Obviously not enough to pay out our Purple Promise Bonus this year. Thanks Fred.

Quoting Pikachu (Reply 18):
Fedex essentially needs 10% of the world's 757 fleet and what Fedex wants Fedex gets.

We have LOI for the intial 87. FX has a business plan to fly more than 100 of them.

Quoting UPS757 (Reply 20):
By Mid-October 2007 - UPS will be out of the 727 business

We'll be shortly behind you.

I still enjoy getting them on the weekends and adhocks during peak.

brucek · Sun Jul 15, 2007 2:04 pm

Quoting DAL1044 (Reply 24):

Thanks, that looks really cool. I love the center engine intake.

Bruce.

Max Q · Sun Jul 15, 2007 2:23 pm

Minutes count in the airfreight business Pikachu.

The cost of extra fuel is well worth it to ensure your packages connect to the next flight at the 'sort'

Fedx will often push the speed up to accomplish this.

As we do in the passenger business if it is deemed that important.

Safety, comfort, on time and efficiency are the priorities (in that order) at my airline.

I have made up time en route many times and believe me it can make a difference, especially to those connecting on to another flight, and I know they are grateful if we can help them to do so.

You have to deliver the product (or the people) on time if you can !

pikachu · Sun Jul 15, 2007 2:45 pm

On a 6 hour flight the difference between mach .80 and mach .82 might be 10 minutes. You are wildly overestimating the speed advantage on a domestic flight.

brons2 · Sun Jul 15, 2007 3:04 pm

Quoting Pikachu (Reply 28):
On a 6 hour flight the difference between mach .80 and mach .82 might be 10 minutes. You are wildly overestimating the speed advantage on a domestic flight.

The 727 can do sprints at .86 though, that's a big difference from the .78 the 737 classics do, for example.

Max Q · Sun Jul 15, 2007 3:16 pm

Yes,

The old 72 can easily do .86.

Our models had a switchable VMO / MMO selector on the airspeed indicator depending on the zero fuel weight.

On the 'A' mode you could indicate nearly 400 knots, and I personally have operated the -200 just under .92 mach it's MMO.

Was a little noisy but gas was cheap back then !

A few minutes here and there cam make all the difference..

memphis · Sun Jul 15, 2007 3:17 pm

Quoting FXramper (Reply 25):

I read a memo from fleet management. They aren't as economical as they once were. They won't last past Q1 2008.

I just do not believe that all of our 727s will be retired by next year, even so, if they were all to be retired, we could not replace all the lost lift with just a few 757s, it just doesn't add up. From what I hear, FX has been trying to retire the three holer for some 10-15 years, I find it HIGHLY unlikely that they will all be in the dessert within the next 18 months. Do you actually believe they will all be gone in such a sort time?

brons2 · Sun Jul 15, 2007 3:18 pm

POINT NINETY TWO?!?!?

wow, that is fast! That's one way to make up some time Big grin

geotrash · Sun Jul 15, 2007 4:33 pm

Quoting Brons2 (Reply 29):
The 727 can do sprints at .86 though, that's a big difference from the .78 the 737 classics do, for example.

Yep. FDX routinely flies the 727 at .84 and sometimes up to .87. Word is it gets a little noisy in the cockpit at that speed.

Dave

peterpuck · Sun Jul 15, 2007 5:49 pm

Quoting Max Q (Reply 30):
Our models had a switchable VMO / MMO selector on the airspeed indicator depending on the zero fuel weight.

On the 'A' mode you could indicate nearly 400 knots, and I personally have operated the -200 just under .92 mach it's MMO.

Freighters are limited to mode B however (because of the cargo door I believe) which is 350 indicated. That still means mach .87

Sun Jul 15, 2007 6:32 pm

Quoting Jhooper (Reply 16):

I really don't know why FedEx would choose to use aircraft which are more expensive to operate, but it probably affects their bottom line less than it would a pax carrier. There's big money to be made in cargo ops. Think about it this way. Let's say I would be willing to pay $20 to ship a 1 lb package overnight from Tennessee to Texas. You'd made $3600 off 180 lbs of cargo. Few people are willing to pay $3600 to ship themselves (at 180 lbs) the same distance. So can you see just how much more $$$ per pound of cargo you could bring in?

At the margin in cargo, the extra cost is not an issue. Keep in mind that the $3600 you talk about is not just tied up in flying the freight from Point A to Point B. The flying is only a part. Everyone forgets the FedEx Guys, the FedEx Trucks, the FedEx Sorting Facilities and all the other stuff that makes it happen. While it may fly from one place to another to another, an army of ground personnel must receive it, prepare it for shipment, sort it, download it from the airplanes, sort it for stations, sort it for routes and deliver it in person. Not as easy as we thought. Oh and in the middle of all that is a bunch of bar code scanning. And data processing. Still, even with all that work, there is much margin in shipping a letter or small package, given you have the economies of scale to do it. Fred Smith's professors thought that wasn't possible. Fred showed us all that is was more than possible, it would become a way of life for us.

monteycarlos · Sun Jul 15, 2007 7:02 pm

Quoting Ncfc99 (Reply 7):
If a 727 is too expensive to operate as a passenger aircraft, why does it make a good freighter?

The 727 is perhaps one of the best payload carrying v. distance aircraft going around. The -200F can carry around 17 tonnes with 12 AAA's. Something that a 737 or A320 freighter could never replicate. The only aircraft that can is probably the 757 and when you think in terms of availability and the cost (both time and money) of the door modification you have your answer.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 14):
The 727 has very very good short field performance, and as such you can't exactly replace them with 737 at some airports....

Plus it only holds space for 9 AAA's as opposed to the 12 of a 722F. It also doesn't get anywhere near the 17 tonnes that the 727 can take over a long distance. On MEL-PER runs, a 737 classic is payload restricted quite heavily (something on the order of a 12 ton payload limit I am lead to believe) whereas a 727 can go out full on 17 ton.

Quoting Brucek (Reply 21):
I have not ever seen a Tay engined 72, but donlt dispute that they exist.

The tay engined the later 727-27/F's... It was quieter and more fuel efficient but by that stage the aircraft was already surpassed.

I for one am downright angry that the 727 is being forced out of the game. It might take on the fuel, but it is one of the best freighters going around. No B733 will ever be able to replicate the kind of capacity or performance of the 727 no matter how long the sector.

Baron52ta · Sun Jul 15, 2007 7:39 pm

Fedex has paid the 727 off in full and when they were bought it was full much less than they were worth, now they are just getting their last miles until the arrival and service proof of 757. A lot of places the 727 run into are just too tight for the bigger 310/300/md10/md11. Also they don't only use the domestic, they also operate in South America and Mexico

tjwgrr · Sun Jul 15, 2007 8:10 pm

Quoting Ssflyboy25 (Thread starter):
Why Does FedEx Use 727s?

Probably for some of the same reasons NWA still is using the DC-9. Paid for, proven & dependable, fits certain markets, no suitable replacement available in large quantities to replace them, etc.....

DC3CV3407AC727 · Sun Jul 15, 2007 8:30 pm

Don't forget the 727 preservation society called ChampionAir, 16 727s in pax service with no replacements on the horizon. A truly great and classic ship !

motopolitico · Sun Jul 15, 2007 9:39 pm

Quoting Max Q (Reply 12):
When time is tight that aircraft can really make up time.

If that is the reason why FedEx has the 727 fleet, then what were fleet planning smoking when they chose the A300/310 over the 767 series? A friend at UPS tells me they can haul the same amount on a 767, but they can make up far more time than with the Airbii, and that is why UPS was so displeased with the A300-600s.

pnwtraveler · Sun Jul 15, 2007 11:48 pm

I though many airlines stopped using the 727 was noise restrictions. Even with the hush kits. Does anyone know?

A342 · Mon Jul 16, 2007 12:01 am

Quoting Pnwtraveler (Reply 41):
I though many airlines stopped using the 727 was noise restrictions. Even with the hush kits. Does anyone know?

I'd say the main reason was fuel, flightdeck and mx costs.

BTW, I'm sure those 5X 721REs will find new operators. If they don't already have it, install the Raisbeck slat mod as well as the Quiet Wing flap mod and winglets, then you should have an absolute rocket!

ourboeing · Mon Jul 16, 2007 12:11 am

In my opinion, it can serve airports with short runways and can haul good amount of load due to it being a tri-jet.

OURBOEING

C133 · Mon Jul 16, 2007 12:16 am

Think how many packages and letter envelopes FedEx can cram into a 727--thousands! Maybe tens of thousands.

A small incremental fuel burn increase matters little to them. What will matter eventually is an ever increasing cost of maintenance, and that's what generally causes older fleets to be retired.

lightsaber · Mon Jul 16, 2007 12:25 am

Quoting Ncfc99 (Reply 7):
If a 727 is too expensive to operate as a passenger aircraft, why does it make a good freighter?

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 9):
One reason is that many freighters only fly 3 or 4 hours a day, especially on domestic routes in the USA, so fuel costs and the added cost of the 3-crew cockpit are smaller factors than for passenger carriers where the aircraft would probably be flying 12 hours a day.

Nice answer to the above.

Also, do not forget about half the freighter fleet sits idle for about 1/2 the year. This drives the fixed cost/variable cost equation to minimizing fixed costs. Thus, there are fewer hours per year to pay the higher fuel burn. But... they pay every penny of the financing cost. (Note: if they're paid for, FedEx internal accounting still assigns an internal "financing fee" for purposes of airframe selection.)

Quoting Pnwtraveler (Reply 41):
I though many airlines stopped using the 727 was noise restrictions. Even with the hush kits. Does anyone know?

No reason not to use a 727 with a hush kit in the USA. However Europe imposed tighter regulations that were effectively written to ban the JT8D. hissyfit

Quoting Baron52ta (Reply 37):
their last miles until the arrival and service proof of 757.

Even in freighters the costs eventually shift to "newer" airframes."

The problem for FedEx will the be transition costs. Basically... they "know" the 727 inside and out. They'll be relearning everything from the flight deck to loading procedures. If someone from a "freight dog" company could explain in more detail the procedure changes when a new aircraft enters the fleet... I would be very interested.

Lightsaber

747fan · Mon Jul 16, 2007 1:02 am

Advanced 727-200 - Max speed 1017km/h (549kt), max cruising speed 953km/h (515kt), economical cruising speed 865km/h (467kt). From aircraft data and history section on our site.
Definitely one of the fastest commercial planes built (other than the Concorde), along with the 747 and DC-10. Much of the 727's speed is because of how far the wings are swept back, the same with the 747 and DC-10.

Quoting G5 (Reply 19):
What ever happened to UPS' 727-100s with the Tay engines?

There's still about 16 of them gracing our skies but as a previous poster mentioned, they'll be retired in the fall. crying

Occasionally, believe it or not, I actually go out and spot at SDF in the very early morning (about 4 AM); that airport is very underrated for spotting at that time, with about a rate of 60 departures per hour during between 3 and 6 AM. There are only a few 727's that depart during that period to RSW, ROA (Roanoke, VA), CID (Cedar Rapids, IA), PIA (Peoria, IL), PIT, and LAN (Lansing, MI). They're definitely very quiet with the RR Tays (and sound great on departure with a distinctive fan whine); they're actually UPS' quietest planes, along with the 757. I know UPS has some pretty old 727, as they're the initial -100 version; they were made in the late '60's, making that the oldest plane in the fleet, older than their DC-8's (most were early '70's) and the 747-100's. They probably are pretty high time as well, despite the fact that they have a pretty low utilization rate now; it used to be their workhorse, but that job now belongs to the 757.

boeingfixer · Mon Jul 16, 2007 2:08 am

Quoting FXramper (Reply 3):
The remaining a/c will be retired by this fall.

Very incorrect statement there. FDX doesn't have the lift available to retire 95 727-200's by this fall. The 727-100 was retired at the beginning of July mainly due to an expensive AD on the horizontal stab. The -200 is on a 4+ year retirement schedule to allow for the modification and integration of the 757 into the FDX fleet. The AOD site should have some more info regarding the 757 and retirement of the 727.

There are a lot of things to consider when retiring a type and bringing in a replacement. Especially when it makes one crew member redundant. Some considerations are:

* Acquisition of replacement aircraft
* Modification of aircraft
* Approval of maintenance program
* Training of maintenance personnel
* Aircrew training
* Engineering support
* Ground support equipment
* Spares Support
* Training of rampers

The list includes many more things but the highlights are covered.

Cheers,

John

warreng24 · Mon Jul 16, 2007 2:56 am

Quoting BoeingFixer (Reply 47):
FDX doesn't have the lift available to retire 95 727-200's by this fall.

Another factor here maybe that FDX is predicting a slowdown of the Economy and hence less demand for freight. That would translate to less lift being required. Just an idea.

cpharris5514 · Mon Jul 16, 2007 2:56 am

Quoting Nosedive (Reply 8):
Cheaper to acquire and usually fly less. Freight probably has better revenue, as PAX weight will vary, and you can fill freight to the gills. Plus, boxes don't complain.

Bingo. The son of a good friend is a NW cargo captain (flying the 747s via Anchorage). He has told me pretty much the same thing -- cargo has more revenue, and you can, literally, pack it like sardines in most cases (as opposed to 500 humans being stuffed into a 727 -- not pretty Smile

). He would say (and I would agree) that this was one of the biggest reasons a ticket on the Concorde was so incredibly expensive. It wasn't just the first-class atmosphere, but the fact that, other than luggage, the bird wasn't configured to carry any cargo.

UPS has one of their (somewhat) air hubs here in Des Moines, and while it's mostly the 757s, 767s, DC8s, and the occasional A300 (especially during the holidays), there is a 727 that graces DSM every so often. FX still uses the 727 into here.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net