Fedex Orders Additional 767s

LAXintl · Fri Jun 29, 2012 9:19 pm

19 additional 767-300F for delivery between 2015-2019 to add to 27 previously announced order for the model.

Sounds like they also dropped orders on 4 777F and used those monies to help with this order.

Story:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/fedex-...ns-fleet-upgrade-19-205425801.html

=

HPRamper · Fri Jun 29, 2012 9:43 pm

Sounds like the right move. Shift from international expansion to shoring up the struggling domestic market. FX can now park even more of the fuel-guzzling MD10s.

lightsaber · Fri Jun 29, 2012 9:51 pm

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
19 additional 767-300F for delivery between 2015-2019 to add to 27 previously announced order for the model.

Ironic. I talked to a friend last night on how I was certain FedEx would top off their 763F order Wednesday night!

I did not expect a cut of 4 777F orders though...

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 1):
Sounds like the right move.

Agreed. However, its sad to read: "The company on June 19 said it was focused on cost cuts to boost profit margins during a prolonged period of slow global economic growth."

That means FedEx will focus on cost cutting for a while instead of volume growth. For us aviation fans, it means FedEx will look into means of 'flying' cargo via truck too.

Ok, they would have anyway, but I expect it accelerates the process.

Day goodbye to 19 old widebodies pretty soon... (Maybe more, depending on how many are displaced by ground transit.)

Lightsaber

co38 · Fri Jun 29, 2012 9:53 pm

Will the 767 FedEx has on order be winglet equipped?

It says in the article the 767s will be used to replace MD-10s, does that mean all the DC-10s has been retired?

B777LRF · Fri Jun 29, 2012 10:10 pm

And if one reads between the lines, it would seem FedEx have made their lack of interest in both the A332F and A332/3P2F quite clear now. Which is a surprise to me, but there we are.

I wonder if Airbus has fallen into a near-dry spot with the A330 freighter, placed as it is just between the 777F and the 767F. Want something big and intercontinental? Go for the 777F. Want something a bit smaller and "continental" only? 767F is still considerably cheaper to operate (purchasing price taken into account) than A332F, and if you need something a bit bigger .... why add a 3rd fleet and 2nd supplier for what, looks like, almost a niche market? "Abusing" a 777F or sticking a second 767F on the route might be the better overall solution. I honestly don't know, but the lack of orders for the A332F and a complete absence of launch orders for the P2F version leaves me wondering.

VC10er · Fri Jun 29, 2012 10:25 pm

I for one, is quite happy. With seeing less 767's as pax ac over the coming years I can still see her take off from EWR, and then bank, offering beautiful views of her leap into the air! I will always love her lines.

lightsaber · Fri Jun 29, 2012 10:52 pm

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 4):
the lack of orders for the A332F and a complete absence of launch orders for the P2F version leaves me wondering.

All indications are that pax A330 orders are driving up the A330F price. For better or worse, that will end in a few years. I'm holding off a decision until then. In particular, I'm waiting to see if:

1. Airbus removes the 2 tons of weight that are in the A330 to provide A340 production commonality that is no longer required (ok, a good chunk of the weight removal is new aluminums... but it still is weight to be removed).
2. Possible new winglets.

Add in an engine PIP, and the payload at range for the A330F improves enough to sell. I'm also hearing rumors of a centerline tank change to cut weight, in particular un-usable fuel. That would help the A330F.

Lightsaber

threeifbyair · Fri Jun 29, 2012 10:55 pm

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 2):
That means FedEx will focus on cost cutting for a while instead of volume growth. For us aviation fans, it means FedEx will look into means of 'flying' cargo via truck too. Ok, they would have anyway, but I expect it accelerates the process.

Trucks can't travel any faster than they did 10 years ago, though, and ground has always been cheaper than air, so FX would presumably have already implemented ground-based "air" service where feasible. I bet cities near major FX hubs already get a lot of trucked cargo (LIT, CVG, SDF, etc.), but I don't know where else it would be feasible to add trucks for planes. Nearby cities up to ~200 miles apart are often within the next day service area for FedEx Ground, so I doubt FX is getting huge air volumes on those routes.

Maybe FX will cut some 208 flying - there is a daily SEA-BVS (Burlington, WA) route that is only 83 miles by land, airport to airport. Most of that is freeway. Delivery times would be later and cutoff times would be earlier at the outstation, but that might be a worthwhile tradeoff.

iceberg210 · Fri Jun 29, 2012 10:57 pm

Great news! Albeit I'm a bit surprised I really figured we'd see a UPS top up order before we saw a Fed Ex one, given that UPS has only 9 left on order, and Fed Ex hasn't even received their first aircraft.

Not to complain though! If there is any aircraft I love to see get orders it's the 767! Long may it live!

And if I'm Boeing I'm sitting there smiling and thrilled! Yeah I've lost 4 orders for 777's, but let's be honest, if there is one line that selling like hot cakes it's the 777, plus later when International is more Fed Ex's focus again their main option will be the 777, so no worries on that there. You'll take these 19 planes, that could well have been A330's, any day of the week.

Speaking of which I am pretty surprised at how the A330, seems to be so quiet order wise for freighters (both new build and P2F). We'll have to see how it keeps rolling....

Stitch · Fri Jun 29, 2012 11:20 pm

Looks like Boeing reducing the cost and time to produce a 767 with the new FAL is paying off in new orders.

pnwtraveler · Fri Jun 29, 2012 11:50 pm

Sounds like FedEx is not overly hyped about the long haul market due to the downturn. They must be banking that it will be settling in for a while. They must feel the existing 77F will cover any expansion into China and growth there.

rotating14 · Sat Jun 30, 2012 12:25 am

With today's developments, is FX still still searching far and wide for 757's to convert into freighters??

trex8 · Sat Jun 30, 2012 12:38 am

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 6):
All indications are that pax A330 orders are driving up the A330F price. For better or worse, that will end in a few years. I'm holding off a decision until then. In particular, I'm waiting to see if:

1. Airbus removes the 2 tons of weight that are in the A330 to provide A340 production commonality that is no longer required (ok, a good chunk of the weight removal is new aluminums... but it still is weight to be removed).
2. Possible new winglets.

Add in an engine PIP, and the payload at range for the A330F improves enough to sell. I'm also hearing rumors of a centerline tank change to cut weight, in particular un-usable fuel. That would help the A330F.

Wouldn't just offering a 238t A332F version like you can get on the pax help rather than just having a 233t?

fxramper · Sat Jun 30, 2012 12:41 am

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 2):
Day goodbye to 19 old widebodies pretty soon... (Maybe more, depending on how many are displaced by ground transit.)

2019 isn't soon and this doesn't replace any INL expansion regardless of the mention it did. CAN & PVG will use the 67F.

CosmicCruiser · Sat Jun 30, 2012 1:23 am

with the new crew base in CGN I wouldn't be surprised to see some in Europe too.

fxramper · Sat Jun 30, 2012 1:30 am

Quoting CosmicCruiser (Reply 14):
with the new crew base in CGN I wouldn't be surprised to see some in Europe too.

I had already posted but the note had listed a Euro hub as well for domestic ops.

ups757 · Sat Jun 30, 2012 1:34 am

Sounds like FedEx is following what UPS did years ago.
UPS gets seven 767 this year and seven more in 2013.
I'll take a 767 over an A300 anytime of the year.

lhcvg · Sat Jun 30, 2012 1:49 am

Quoting threeifbyair (Reply 7):
Trucks can't travel any faster than they did 10 years ago, though, and ground has always been cheaper than air, so FX would presumably have already implemented ground-based "air" service where feasible. I bet cities near major FX hubs already get a lot of trucked cargo (LIT, CVG, SDF, etc.), but I don't know where else it would be feasible to add trucks for planes. Nearby cities up to ~200 miles apart are often within the next day service area for FedEx Ground, so I doubt FX is getting huge air volumes on those routes.

Oddly enough, FX still does a decent bit of air out of CVG. UPS trucks everything from SDF, but even with the mini hub at IND, FX still has an Airbus there most days. Whenever I go back to visit, I leave to go back home in the morning, there is almost always an A300 or 310 on the ramp.

Or is it just as simple as using IND as a collector for FX Feeder traffic, and then taking the O&D cargo from CVG straight to MEM where it can then get anywhere in the system? If something like that is in place, it could explain their different strategy from UPS there. Surely if there is a package from CVG-xxx where 'xxx' has to be flown on a Feeder route from IND that MEM doesn't serve, they would just truck it up there.

[Edited 2012-06-29 18:58:57]

dfwramper · Sat Jun 30, 2012 3:12 am

Pretty sure the new 767 aircraft are incompatible with the AMJ's that FedEx uses, aren't they? It's been a long time, but is it the A2 container that UPS uses in those airplanes? If FedEx is going to introduce a new container type into the network -- that seems like a tremendous cost in addition to the new aircraft. Was the A330F compatible with the AMJ's or did that airplane also require a new container type so the container costs never entered into the buy comparison?

airplanenut · Sat Jun 30, 2012 3:19 am

Quoting co38 (Reply 3):
Will the 767 FedEx has on order be winglet equipped?

I doubt it. My understanding is that the winglet on the 767 can still only be installed as a retrofit, so a new 767 with winglets would have to be built as normal, then immediately have the wing tip replaced. While fuel efficiency is important in all of aviation, it is less so for cargo operations because the planes fly less (look at how many cargo planes are the gas guzzlers the airlines got rid of), so I would assume it isn't worth the cost for FedEx to do it.

Stitch · Sat Jun 30, 2012 3:23 am

Quoting DFWRamper (Reply 18):
If FedEx is going to introduce a new container type into the network -- that seems like a tremendous cost in addition to the new aircraft.

I expect the cost is quite low, relatively. Plus with a large 767 fleet, the can utilization goes up.

Quoting DFWRamper (Reply 18):
Was the A330F compatible with the AMJ's or did that airplane also require a new container type so the container costs never entered into the buy comparison?

The A330 can take an AMJ and AYY side-by-side like on the A300 and A310 fleets.

71Zulu · Sat Jun 30, 2012 3:58 am

Quoting co38 (Reply 3):
It says in the article the 767s will be used to replace MD-10s, does that mean all the DC-10s has been retired?

Yes, the last Fedex DC-10 flight was on April 6th, 2009, when N315FE was retired to the desert. This same plane was then converted to an MD-10 and is back flying again with Fedex.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jared Romanowicz - PHX Spotters

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Javier Cáceres - AirImagesPR Spotters

lightsaber · Sat Jun 30, 2012 4:20 am

Quoting trex8 (Reply 12):
Wouldn't just offering a 238t A332F version like you can get on the pax help rather than just having a 233t?

Yep!

That too.

But price will be an issue until A330 pax demand drops a wee bit more.

Lightsaber

HPRamper · Sat Jun 30, 2012 4:50 am

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 2):
Day goodbye to 19 old widebodies pretty soon... (Maybe more, depending on how many are displaced by ground transit.)

If they can be effectively replaced by ground transit, they probably already have been. FX isn't going to fly a trunk aircraft fifty miles just for giggles.

Quoting threeifbyair (Reply 7):
I bet cities near major FX hubs already get a lot of trucked cargo (LIT, CVG, SDF, etc.), but I don't know where else it would be feasible to add trucks for planes. Nearby cities up to ~200 miles apart are often within the next day service area for FedEx Ground, so I doubt FX is getting huge air volumes on those routes.

Ground does not guarantee that service however, so shippers often still opt for Express just to cover their asses. If Ground wants to take three days to ship a package 200 miles they can with no repercussions.

Quoting threeifbyair (Reply 7):
Maybe FX will cut some 208 flying - there is a daily SEA-BVS (Burlington, WA) route that is only 83 miles by land, airport to airport. Most of that is freeway. Delivery times would be later and cutoff times would be earlier at the outstation, but that might be a worthwhile tradeoff.

First Overnight will not make the commit time if that is trucked. Probably the same for much of the Priority stuff. Besides, the drive on freeway from SEA to BVS during the morning rush hour isn't exactly a walk in the park.

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 11):
With today's developments, is FX still still searching far and wide for 757's to convert into freighters??

There are only about 10-12ish 727s left in the fleet so the demand isn't what it was before...that said, FX probably won't turn down a good deal. The 757 is used internationally as well as domestic.

Quoting DFWRamper (Reply 18):
Pretty sure the new 767 aircraft are incompatible with the AMJ's that FedEx uses, aren't they? It's been a long time, but is it the A2 container that UPS uses in those airplanes? If FedEx is going to introduce a new container type into the network -- that seems like a tremendous cost in addition to the new aircraft.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 20):
The A330 can take an AMJ and AYY side-by-side like on the A300 and A310 fleets.

There is a new container. The Airbuses are being converted to take the new containers so they will be common with the 767. There will be a lot fewer AMJs flown in the system after this takes place.

Revelation · Sat Jun 30, 2012 12:07 pm

Between FedEx, UPS and the USAF, it's a sure bet we'll be able to see 767s flying in the 2040s...

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 1):
Sounds like the right move. Shift from international expansion to shoring up the struggling domestic market.

This clear statement about the weak international market also seems to push back the "inevitable" A380F at least another half decade if not more. Leahy's "postponed" A380F seems to never get a break.

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 11):
With today's developments, is FX still still searching far and wide for 757's to convert into freighters??

I suspect not. They already do have a backlog for their conversion process. I suspect they really don't have to search for 757s. They are kind of like DL with their DC-9 derivatives. Sellers who want a nice clean tidy sale know to knock on FedEx's door.

redflyer · Sat Jun 30, 2012 12:22 pm

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 4):
but the lack of orders for the A332F and a complete absence of launch orders for the P2F version leaves me wondering.

I don't think Airbus is worried too much right now with a lack of F orders. They launched the program when everyone expected Pax orders to start dropping off because of the 787/350 looming on the horizon. With A330 orders booming and a healthy backlog, I'm sure they are making up for a lack of F orders with Pax orders. The F version will have its heyday yet.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 24):
This clear statement about the weak international market also seems to push back the "inevitable" A380F at least another half decade if not more. Leahy's "postponed" A380F seems to never get a break.

The only A380F versions that may see the light of day will be Pax models that are converted after their owner-airlines start parking them in the desert and a cargo carrier picks them up for a song and a dance.

UPS Pilot · Sat Jun 30, 2012 12:44 pm

The 767 is a great choice for FX. UPS has been flying new build 767's going on 20 years. The MD-10 conversion wasn't the smartest thing FX did. The 76 gives much more flexibility due to range and payload than the md-10 and a300.

Fx is under different laws in regards to UPS. UPS has been trucking air from the start. If it can meet the service commitment by ground it goes ground. UPS has had guaranteed ground for years. From what I have been told FX is going to send deferred air like 2 day and pm via ground. This will actually be done thru customers shipping software. The software will send the package thru the proper network for service commitment. This will still keep Fed Ex Express under RLA but what it does is reduce volume in Express and shifts it to ground. That is very bad news for Express workers and pilots. Volume reductions mean job loss. Who wins in this case? Fred Smith and shareholders. I can't wait to see how this play out because FX ground is contractors and are not the best in the business. There will be service failures. It's a shame FX pilots cave in to Fred Smith all the time. This is going to cost them with volume they should get going to very low cost contractors that are not even Fed Ex employees.

747400sp · Sat Jun 30, 2012 12:47 pm

I guess 767s fans, should really love FX. Well, in the future, when the world sees a lot of 787s and 777s, thank to FX and USAF, people will see the predecessor of the 787, which has the section 41 of 777.

ebj1248650 · Sat Jun 30, 2012 12:52 pm

Quoting ups757 (Reply 16):
I'll take a 767 over an A300 anytime of the year.

The A300s served them well, as did the A310s. I don't think anyone will argue they got their money's worth out of both. That said, new equipment will, or should, mean less maintenance headaches ... or so we hope.

UPS Pilot · Sat Jun 30, 2012 12:55 pm

I think UPS and FX are basically done with Airbus unless something drastic takes place. The whole A380 mess left bad tastes. UPS even canceled the remaining A300 orders which Fed Ex took. UPS ordered more 767's instead. Now look what Fed Ex is ordering. Airbus really screwed up with he a380 freighter. I had always said though the a380 f would haul a lot of boxes, the turn around time and equipment needed to off load and reload would kill the advantage it might have over the 747 and 777.

kc135topboom · Sat Jun 30, 2012 2:17 pm

Quoting airplanenut (Reply 19):
Quoting co38 (Reply 3):Will the 767 FedEx has on order be winglet equipped?

I doubt it. My understanding is that the winglet on the 767 can still only be installed as a retrofit, so a new 767 with winglets would have to be built as normal, then immediately have the wing tip replaced.

Weren't the last few B-767-300ERs delivered to NH last year and early this year factory fresh with blended winglets mounted during final assembly?

Revelation · Sat Jun 30, 2012 2:27 pm

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 27):
I guess 767s fans, should really love FX. Well, in the future, when the world sees a lot of 787s and 777s, thank to FX and USAF, people will see the predecessor of the 787, which has the section 41 of 777.

One Boeing insider who posts here did a good posting saying that while it is true that they started with the 767 section 41, very little of it ended up remaining on the 777, basically the bits around the windshield are all that remained.

Quoting Ups Pilot (Reply 29):
I had always said though the a380 f would haul a lot of boxes, the turn around time and equipment needed to off load and reload would kill the advantage it might have over the 747 and 777.

I also think the MX cost of four engines is quite hard to justify.

It pains me to say it because I love 3-holers (and cheers to 71Zulu for posting the fab pictures above!) but the move away from MD-10s is to a degree about getting rid of the 3rd engine.

The presser in the thread starter says it all:

Quote:

The new planes provide similar capacity as the MD-10s, but are about 30 percent more fuel efficient and reduce unit operating costs by more than 20 percent, the company said.

KDAYflyer · Sat Jun 30, 2012 2:50 pm

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
19 additional 767-300F for delivery between 2015-2019 to add to 27 previously announced order for the model.

Sounds like they also dropped orders on 4 777F and used those monies to help with this order.

Great news for the 767 line! Congrats too Fedex and Boeing. I wonder of a few of these birds will end up in the new Asian hub?

Spacepope · Sat Jun 30, 2012 3:08 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 30):
Weren't the last few B-767-300ERs delivered to NH last year and early this year factory fresh with blended winglets mounted during final assembly?

The newest Armenian 763, whch was just completed, was flown to ATL for winglet installation.

SCL767 · Sat Jun 30, 2012 3:34 pm

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
19 additional 767-300F for delivery between 2015-2019 to add to 27 previously announced order for the model.

Congrats to Boeing and FedEx on this latest order. It's great to see a new order or a top-up order for the B-767-300ERs!

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 30):
Weren't the last few B-767-300ERs delivered to NH last year and early this year factory fresh with blended winglets mounted during final assembly?

The blended winglets are not fitted on the B-767-300ERs during final assembly.

Quoting Spacepope (Reply 33):
The newest Armenian 763, whch was just completed, was flown to ATL for winglet installation.

It was Azerbaijan Airlines newest B-767-32LER that was ferried to ATL for winglet installation.

[Edited 2012-06-30 08:54:27]

SEPilot · Sat Jun 30, 2012 5:10 pm

Quoting Ups Pilot (Reply 29):
I think UPS and FX are basically done with Airbus unless something drastic takes place. The whole A380 mess left bad tastes. UPS even canceled the remaining A300 orders which Fed Ex took. UPS ordered more 767's instead. Now look what Fed Ex is ordering. Airbus really screwed up with he a380 freighter. I had always said though the a380 f would haul a lot of boxes, the turn around time and equipment needed to off load and reload would kill the advantage it might have over the 747 and 777.

I do find it interesting that both UPS and FX have large A300-A310 fleets but neither have ordered the A330F, which on first blush would seem a natural step, as it has the same fuselage cross section. They have both gone to the 767, which I believe is significantly smaller, and while it is the same generation as the A330, has to be less efficient due to its smaller size (and it also is smaller diameter than the DC-10's that it is replacing for the most part) if nothing else. I can't believe BOTH of them are in a childish snit because of the cancellation (delay, if you must-perhaps until Hell freezes over) of the A380F; I just don't think large, successful corporations behave that way in this day and age. But it does appear that both of them have run happily into the arms of Boeing and aren't looking back. There must be more to the relationship with Airbus that we don't know-and it is more perplexing that both of them are acting the same way.

[Edited 2012-06-30 10:11:24]

lightsaber · Sat Jun 30, 2012 6:00 pm

Quoting KDAYflyer (Reply 32):
Great news for the 767 line!

Yes! It is easy to get wrapped up in the a.net discussion and forget such important things.

Further 763F orders will help Boeing keep the line open (if, for example, prolonged tanker negotiations occur). Which then lets Boeing pursue further orders.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 31):
It pains me to say it because I love 3-holers (and cheers to 71Zulu for posting the fab pictures above!) but the move away from MD-10s is to a degree about getting rid of the 3rd engine.

The presser in the thread starter says it all:

Quote:

The new planes provide similar capacity as the MD-10s, but are about 30 percent more fuel efficient and reduce unit operating costs by more than 20 percent, the company said.

It pains me too. I work with a large number of ex-Douglas engineers. But I also work R&D, it is time for new airframes. It isn't as if these airframes were new airframes early in their depreciation curves.

The reality is that each engine on a DC-10 or 767 costs about the same to maintain. They aren't that different in fuel burn either... So time to rationalize to twins unless a quad does the job (there are no recent tri-jets, excluding Daussalt's business jets).

Quoting 71Zulu (Reply 21):
Yes, the last Fedex DC-10 flight was on April 6th, 2009, when N315FE was retired to the desert. This same plane was then converted to an MD-10 and is back flying again with Fedex.

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 23):
If they can be effectively replaced by ground transit, they probably already have been. FX isn't going to fly a trunk aircraft fifty miles just for giggles.

FedEx is better than UPS at growth while UPS is better at efficiency. If FedEx is predicting an extended period of slow growth, the advantage goes from the rapid adapted (FedEx) the more efficient operation (UPS)

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 35):
If Ground begins handling deferred Express shipments, I suspect that many customers will be switching to UPS

Then FedEx needs to fix their issues. UPS handles both very efficiently. In a slow growth environment, FedEx has little choice but to better integrate the two sides. How? That I do not claim to know. What I do know is that if FedEx doesn't take a *big* page out of UPS' book, i twill hurt them.

Lightsaber

Stitch · Sat Jun 30, 2012 6:36 pm

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 36):
I do find it interesting that both UPS and FX have large A300-A310 fleets but neither have ordered the A330F, which on first blush would seem a natural step, as it has the same fuselage cross section. They have both gone to the 767, which I believe is significantly smaller...

The 767-300F is actually quite capable of replacing an A300-600RF or A310-300F. The following figures are, in order, for the 767-300F, the A300-600RF and the A310-300F:

Total Volume: 483m3 | 374m3 | 274m3
Maximum Payload: 54t | 49t | 37t
Range at Maximum Payload: 6025km | 3700km | 6100km

The A330-200F is really a significant step up from the A300-600RF and especially from the A310-300F, with 475m3 of volume, a payload between 65-70t and a range between 5930km (70t) and 7400km (65t). It should do great as an intercontinental or heavy regional freighter.

[Edited 2012-06-30 11:54:26]

NC1844V · Sat Jun 30, 2012 6:44 pm

Interesting News. Its good to see that the 767 that is slowly disappearing form our skies as Pax aircraft will live on for the near future as cargo aircraft.

I did not see the drop of 777F orders coming though.

Thanks for sharing.

cloudyapple · Sat Jun 30, 2012 6:49 pm

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 4):
And if one reads between the lines, it would seem FedEx have made their lack of interest in both the A332F and A332/3P2F quite clear now. Which is a surprise to me, but there we are.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 36):
I do find it interesting that both UPS and FX have large A300-A310 fleets but neither have ordered the A330F, which on first blush would seem a natural step, as it has the same fuselage cross section.

If you think about what they are replacing (DC10/MD10s), you will realize B767 is the easiest option - both DC10 and B767 are ICAO Code D/FAA Cat IV whereas A330s are ICAO Code E/FAA Cat V. So they have no choice unless they want to reconfigure a whole bunch of stands for the replacement aircraft type requiring significant disruption to their hub operation.

Quoting Ups Pilot (Reply 29):
UPS even canceled the remaining A300 orders which Fed Ex took. UPS ordered more 767's instead. Now look what Fed Ex is ordering.

Fedex has no choice now that the A300/310 are not longer produced. You can blame the A380 all you want but the fact is they have only 1 aircraft type on the market to choose from.

Spacepope · Sat Jun 30, 2012 6:51 pm

Quoting SCL767 (Reply 34):
It was Azerbaijan Airlines newest B-767-32LER that was ferried to ATL for winglet installation.

Whoopsie. That mixup would start a minor war in that area of the world. In any case, winglets are still being installed on new aircraft by third parties.

rotating14 · Sat Jun 30, 2012 7:08 pm

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 35):

Could you elaborate a bit more on this??

krisyyz · Sat Jun 30, 2012 7:39 pm

Just out of curiosity, what is the flightdeck layout of the new build 767s? Is it still the "classic" 767 type or is Boeing building them with LCD displays like on the 764s?

KrisYYZ

HPRamper · Sat Jun 30, 2012 7:49 pm

Quoting ebj1248650 (Reply 28):
The A300s served them well, as did the A310s. I don't think anyone will argue they got their money's worth out of both. That said, new equipment will, or should, mean less maintenance headaches ... or so we hope.

I would argue that since FX has the newest build A300s flying, they have not yet gotten their money's worth out of them. That's why they aren't parking those yet.

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 35):
FedEx already loses a lot of goodwill because of the not-ready-for-prime-time service quality of the Ground operation, especially as compared to the highest-quality Express operation. If Ground begins handling deferred Express shipments, I suspect that many customers will be switching to UPS, which doesn't hand off the material to a bunch of incompetents just because it is travelling a short distance.

I wouldn't be so sure about Ground taking Express packages. People are paying more for the Express service and it would be a huge breach of faith to simply have Ground carry and deliver those packages. The branches do not carry one another's freight except in extreme cases (such as Alaska freight) as it is now. There is also Express ground which is not the same as Ground. Express has plenty of trucks too.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 36):
They have both gone to the 767, which I believe is significantly smaller, and while it is the same generation as the A330, has to be less efficient due to its smaller size (and it also is smaller diameter than the DC-10's that it is replacing for the most part) if nothing else. I can't believe BOTH of them are in a childish snit because of the cancellation (delay, if you must-perhaps until Hell freezes over) of the A380F; I just don't think large, successful corporations behave that way in this day and age.

The 330 was also smaller diameter than the MD10/11. It would have had to be the same configuration as the A300 - AMJ/AYY side by side. In the end I just think Boeing gave them a better deal than Airbus was offering, end of story.

Quoting NC1844v (Reply 39):
Interesting News. Its good to see that the 767 that is slowly disappearing form our skies as Pax aircraft will live on for the near future as cargo aircraft.

I did not see the drop of 777F orders coming though.

FX still has 20-something 777s on order so it's not really going to make a huge difference. They are coming to the realization that with domestic margins so small, fuel efficiency and dispatch reliability are becoming more important than other factors. This isn't going to be immediate, these planes are going to be delivered over what, 5+ years starting two years from now. FX is looking down the road.

UPS Pilot · Sat Jun 30, 2012 8:29 pm

To the person who said UPS and FX were acting childish in regards to the A 380, what are you talking about? It's business. Airbus didn't deliver and Boeing did. Not getting into an A vs B with you.

About the 76 being the only choice FX had. Your right. The a300 is not a 767. The person who ordered the A300 for UPS now works for Airbus. As soon as UPS could get out of the a300 order they did and ordered 767's because of more payload and range. FX had the opportunity to order more a300's and did not either.

As far as air packages going ground not being in good faith, well your paying for the package to get from point a to point b by a certain time. That's it. Nothing unethical about it.

FX Express employees are very good at what they do. There are some good ground guys too but they are contractors working very cheap with no back ground checks like express driver get. The sad thing is the only unionized shop at FX is the pilots. They didn't care about their fellow workers at Express. Their fellow employees will be losing jobs and hours when integration starts happening. The pilots think they are untouchable. That will change when deferred starts going ground. They forgot that Fred told them he would replace them if they threatened to strike and they caved. They didn't support the Express drivers or mechanics when they tried to unionize. This would have protected everybody at Express but now Fred can do what ever he wants.

EXMEMWIDGET · Sat Jun 30, 2012 8:55 pm

Quoting Ups Pilot (Reply 45):
FX Express employees are very good at what they do. There are some good ground guys too but they are contractors working very cheap with no back ground checks like express driver get. The sad thing is the only unionized shop at FX is the pilots. They didn't care about their fellow workers at Express. Their fellow employees will be losing jobs and hours when integration starts happening. The pilots think they are untouchable. That will change when deferred starts going ground. They forgot that Fred told them he would replace them if they threatened to strike and they caved. They didn't support the Express drivers or mechanics when they tried to unionize. This would have protected everybody at Express but now Fred can do what ever he wants.

That has been happening for years. So much of the Express volume has been shifted over to FedEx Freight and FedEx Ground that it has become frightening. We routinely have FT employees scheduled for less than 35 hrs per week. FedEx has taken away our split shift and shift differential pay this year alone. It is my opinion that FedEx Express would love for the whole company to operate like FedEx Ground.....nothing but contractors with no benefits. I am continually amazed at how FedEx is voted one of the top companies to work for year after year!

HPRamper · Sat Jun 30, 2012 9:00 pm

Quoting Ups Pilot (Reply 45):
As far as air packages going ground not being in good faith, well your paying for the package to get from point a to point b by a certain time. That's it. Nothing unethical about it.

It's two different companies. Express has certain guarantees and perks that Ground does not offer and that is why Express costs so much more. Sure, most people don't care about that and that's why Ground carries more volume than Express, but some people do care and it would be a big deal to say hey you are still paying extra for this service that you actually aren't going to get because some other company is delivering your package. For instance Ground does not have guaranteed service commit times or tracking to within ten minutes. They are more like hey you get your package when you get it, end of story.

Quoting Ups Pilot (Reply 45):
The sad thing is the only unionized shop at FX is the pilots. They didn't care about their fellow workers at Express. Their fellow employees will be losing jobs and hours when integration starts happening.

FX doesn't cut frontline jobs. Only management has been involuntarily cut and they were offered other positions in the company beforehand. There is enough turnover in the industry that when numbers need to be cut, FX simply allows attrition to lower the headcount. Maybe that is inflexible but it also goes a long way for those who value job security.

HPRamper · Sat Jun 30, 2012 9:08 pm

Quoting EXMEMWIDGET (Reply 46):
We routinely have FT employees scheduled for less than 35 hrs per week. FedEx has taken away our split shift and shift differential pay this year alone. It is my opinion that FedEx Express would love for the whole company to operate like FedEx Ground.....nothing but contractors with no benefits.

FT employees may be scheduled for less than 35 hours per week but they still get paid for 35 as that is the minimum. They can work ten hours a week and will still be paid for 35.

Yes the split shift bonus cut was hurtful and a rude surprise. But the shift differential pay never made sense. The whole company operates on either a swing or early morning shift, why bother paying extra for something that is neither unusual nor special. That differential should never have been paid to begin with. Getting paid extra for working from 5 to 10pm? Really?

And on the contrary I think the opposite, it seems that FX pushes the benefits more than anything else. Hours get cut to minimums but the managers like to go on and on about the great deal everyone is getting because of the benefits. I am getting ready to transfer to a smaller ramp that operates in a much different way than most locations and I believe it may be the future of the company. Couriers work the ramp as well as deliver packages. I think in a way it makes a lot of sense, why have twice the number of employees all getting paid benefits when you can have half the number of people do the same amount of work and also get enough hours that they won't complain...part-timers will get a good six hours a day instead of three, etc.

trex8 · Sat Jun 30, 2012 9:18 pm

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 36):
There must be more to the relationship with Airbus that we don't know-and it is more perplexing that both of them are acting the same way.

How about A can sell every pax A330 they make at a "high" price while B is desperate to keep the 767 line going till the KC46s roll off them.

Stitch · Sat Jun 30, 2012 9:43 pm

Quoting trex8 (Reply 49):
How about A can sell every pax A330 they make at a "high" price while B is desperate to keep the 767 line going till the KC46s roll off them.

The A330-200 freighter (new-build and converted) does seem to be a victim of the passenger model's success, but Boeing significantly reduced the cost and time to build a 767 when they moved the FAL and that seems to be paying dividends with new orders at good margins.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net