Swissair 111: cause revisited ???

[Robin Johnson]

BTW, I still see KLM MD-11s fliying to Montreal.

My only MD-11 flight was a very pleasant one aboard one of Finnair's
last passenger versions in 2008. Apart from KLM.and US charter
carrier World Airways, all the others have been written off, or
converted to freighters. I believe only one US major bought them as
passenger aircraft: Delta.
But then Delta was the only airline to buy 747s. DC-10s, and Tristars
in the first round of wide-bodies!

Robin Johnson
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.

[John Levine]

all the others have been written off, or converted to freighters.

FedEx and UPS run a lot of them. I gather FedEx not only bought up
lots of used MD-11s, but also bought DC-10s and turned them into
MD-10s, with the MD-11's two-man cockpit.

R's,
John
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.

[JF Mezei]

Post by John Levine
FedEx and UPS run a lot of them. I gather FedEx not only bought up
lots of used MD-11s, but also bought DC-10s and turned them into
MD-10s, with the MD-11's two-man cockpit.

Why would FedEx or UPS find older less fuel efficient aircraft better
than buying new aircraft ?

Is it just a question of acquisition costs being so low for such
unwanted passenger aircraft that it more than makes up for much higher
operating costs ?

But in such an equation wouldn't there come a time where the the
additional fuel/maintenance costs will surpass the savings from low
acquisition costs and if they keep it any longer, this solution ends up
having costed more than buying new aircraft ?


Wouldn't the same economics that pushed passenger airlines to replace
such aircraft with 777s/A330s also push cargo airlines to go for the 777 ?


Or do these aircraft have a low enough utilisation rate that the higher
operating/maintenance costs amount to much smaller amounts ?
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.

[matt weber]

On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 00:49:54 -0400, JF Mezei

Post by JF Mezei

Post by John Levine
FedEx and UPS run a lot of them. I gather FedEx not only bought up
lots of used MD-11s, but also bought DC-10s and turned them into
MD-10s, with the MD-11's two-man cockpit.

Why would FedEx or UPS find older less fuel efficient aircraft better
than buying new aircraft ?

When you are in the package freight business, what you want is
reliability, and efficiency. The figure of merit for freighter is how
many tonnes of airframe do you have to carry per tonne of freight.
That number turns out to be very attractive on both the MD11 and D10,
far better than the A300F or A330F. On the A380F, the figure was
terrible, and that's why they were all cancelled. The 747-8F has about
85% of the lift capacity of the A380F, but the OEW is about 40% lower,
and the engines on the 747-8F are generation later than the A380 power
plant. The market that the package freight guys had in mind for the
A380 is now occupied by the 777F, and for the bulk cargo haulers, the
747-8F.

Fuel burn is directly proportional to weight. So if you have to haul
an extra 20% in airframe weight, that eats directly into the fuel
burn, and can more than negate the benefit of a more fuel efficient
engine.

There is a more subtle advantage withe D10/MD11. In the package
freight business, these aircraft tend to run out of lift (weight) at
about the same time they run out of space to carry the freight. 747F's
tend to turn out of lift well before they run out space to put the
freight in.

Post by JF Mezei
Is it just a question of acquisition costs being so low for such
unwanted passenger aircraft that it more than makes up for much higher
operating costs ?
But in such an equation wouldn't there come a time where the the
additional fuel/maintenance costs will surpass the savings from low
acquisition costs and if they keep it any longer, this solution ends up
having costed more than buying new aircraft ?
Wouldn't the same economics that pushed passenger airlines to replace
such aircraft with 777s/A330s also push cargo airlines to go for the 777 ?

The 777F is a pretty unusual freighter. It doesn't have an especially
attractive ratio of payload to deadweight, what it does have is a
reasonable payload with very long legs, which makes it a very
attractive aircraft for services that are very time sensitive (Package
freight business).

Post by JF Mezei
Or do these aircraft have a low enough utilisation rate that the higher
operating/maintenance costs amount to much smaller amounts ?

The freight business has two kinds of players. The big boys like UPS,
Fedex, Cargolux,NCA, LH Cargo etc, and then you have the bit players.
For the big boys, they get such high utlization, that the operating
cost side of the equation more than makes up for the Capital cost. If
you have low utilization, then the Capital costs predominate, and
efficiency is a lot less of an issue. The are the guys who are flying
converted passenger aircraft 100 hours a month.
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.

[Ken]

Post by JF Mezei
Why would FedEx or UPS find older less fuel efficient aircraft better
than buying new aircraft ?
Is it just a question of acquisition costs being so low for such
unwanted passenger aircraft that it more than makes up for much higher
operating costs ?

Exactly. At the time, Fed Ex was able to get a fleet of DC-10s for
almost nothing. The aircraft had a fair number of hours, but very low
cycles. Since freight operations tend to have more cycles than hours,
used passenger aircraft are prime freight conversion candidates.

Fed Ex put about $10M per aircraft into the cockpit conversion - glass
displays, two pilot operation, modern flight controls, etc. Throw in
some additional work on corrosion and structures improvements and they
ended up with essentially a brand new aircraft for a fraction of the
price of a new widebody. The additional fuel and maintenance costs
associated with a 3 engine aircraft weren't enough to outweigh the
refurb economics.
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.

[JF Mezei]

Post by Ken
Fed Ex put about $10M per aircraft into the cockpit conversion - glass
displays, two pilot operation, modern flight controls, etc.

Would American Airlines have been allowed to do this with their DC10s ?
or would this have required a new type rating and a full gamut of
testing/validation/approvals which are not required for cargo airlines ?

Taking this to the limit, could FedEx put 2 GE90 engines on its DC10s
and take the tail engine off and replace the hole with some aerodynamic
cone ? Wouldn't this approach performance of a 777 ?


Just wondering is the currently new generation of engines have
sufficient performance improvements to make such conversions worthwhile
?
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.

[matt weber]

On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 14:10:31 -0400, JF Mezei

Post by JF Mezei

Post by Ken
Fed Ex put about $10M per aircraft into the cockpit conversion - glass
displays, two pilot operation, modern flight controls, etc.

Would American Airlines have been allowed to do this with their DC10s ?
or would this have required a new type rating and a full gamut of
testing/validation/approvals which are not required for cargo airlines ?
Taking this to the limit, could FedEx put 2 GE90 engines on its DC10s
and take the tail engine off and replace the hole with some aerodynamic
cone ? Wouldn't this approach performance of a 777 ?
Just wondering is the currently new generation of engines have
sufficient performance improvements to make such conversions worthwhile
?

Probably not. The difference between the JT3/JT8 and the CFM56 was
truly vast, on the order of 50%. So there were very real gains in
range, fuel burn, and lift that were gained in the KC135R and DC8-70
programs. There was also a quantum improvement between the 737-200A
that were JT8 powered, and the -300 that uses the CFM56. The CFM56 is
what made the 737 the world beater.


By contrast the difference between an RB211-524G-T and a Trent 900 is
only about 10% in terms of fuel burn. The SFC spread between a
CF6-80C2 and a GE90-94B is only about 15%. The killer on converting
the D10 or MD11 to a twin is that the fact that are 3 engines is
embedded in many systems of the aircraft. Painful is a polite word for
the costs associated with such a program.
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.

[Ken]

Post by JF Mezei
Would American Airlines have been allowed to do this with their DC10s ?
or would this have required a new type rating and a full gamut of
testing/validation/approvals which are not required for cargo airlines ?

The testing/cert process is the same regardless. AA or any other
operator could have certainly done the same mod, but the payback numbers
would have been different due to the differences in planned hours/cycles
going forward.

Post by JF Mezei
Taking this to the limit, could FedEx put 2 GE90 engines on its DC10s
and take the tail engine off and replace the hole with some aerodynamic
cone ? Wouldn't this approach performance of a 777 ?

The DC-10 to MD-10 conversion didn't change the engines or the
aerodynamic characteristics of the aircraft. Aside what a missing tail
engine would have done to the CG of the aircraft, I can't imagine what
the costs would be like for changes of that magnitude. And given how
hard Boeing is trying to avoid to put larger diameter engines under the
737MAX, I doubt you could easily fit GE90s (128" fan) under a DC-10
instead of the CF6s (86" fan).
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.