Commercial longevity: Cargo vs Passenger. Which is longer?

[Chock 17,769]

And that M'Lud, is the case for the defence.

[Camsdad13 64]

UPS fly's the youngest fleet at the moment at under 19 years. All the A300's were new builds and have low fleet utilization with domestic hub turns. UPS was the launch customer for the 757PF and all new build 757's again with low utilization. UPS was also the launch customer for the 767PF. This is the workhorse of the fleet used around the world. I believe all but 3 are new builds. the 3 that were bought are primarily used in Europe and were to fill in for flight deck enhancements being done on the 767 and A300 fleets. The 744 fleet was mostly new builds. There were converted big tops that were bought, I believe 2 and I believe a couple from Cargolux. The 74-8 all new builds and still coming. The MD-11's were supposed to be taken off Intl and moved to domestic. Volume has exploded internationally so the MD is still all over the globe. Recently UPS bought some MD's from Lufthansa that are entering service. Right now UPS is filling holes for the excessive business they have faced the past couple years. I believe UPS is now the largest 74 operator.

 

Forgot to add that UPS fleet plans include MD-11 replacement. These include the 777, A330 and even talk of launch customer for the A350 freighter. Main issues is wingspan and capacity. Ramp space at SDF is at a minimum and having an MD replacement with a larger wingspan will be a concern. Capacity needs to meet or exceed current MD lift. 

Edited July 31, 2020 by Camsdad13
add

[GearUp180 55]

On 7/29/2020 at 3:47 AM, Amrick615 said:

Hello! 
 

I was looking to discuss this topic to gain an understanding about the longevity of cargo planes compared to passenger jets. 
 

Why exactly do cargo-lines (Fedex, UPS, etc) still fly older models such as the MD-11, DC-10, and A300, whereas the major passenger airlines have deemed them as outdated and inefficient for passenger travel? Are the payloads of cargo flights more lucrative since you can fit more boxes than people into a plane?

Also, where does the 767 stand on this? I feel like airlines are phasing this plane out, however cargo-lines like Prime Air are still investing in it. What’s the incentive to do this?

 

thank you! 
 

Amrick Dhillon

Hi!

Flying old planes is cargo company business model.

The cargo's economics are explained in this video (refer to 8:21 for details on the fleet's age):

 

[fluffyflops 1,856]

I know a few guys at cargolux, asl and cargologicair.  The aircraft are constantly being dinked while loading and unloading with high loaders

[Chock 17,769]

25 minutes ago, fluffyflops said:

I know a few guys at cargolux, asl and cargologicair.  The aircraft are constantly being dinked while loading and unloading with high loaders

That's because it is pretty tight to fit a high loader on an aeroplane and some people are just rubbish at positioning them. It does take a bit of getting used to because you are offset to one side at the steering wheel and have to line the platform up with the door with not much room to spare.

On some aeroplanes, such as the A319, you are really close to the starboard engine as you come up to the front hold and to approach the rear hold you have to come along the back of the wing right near the flap canoes and then swing it in and straighten up at the last moment. If you look at this pic where I put the high loader on the back of a BA Airbus, you can see how close the front edge of the loading platform is to the opening for the cargo door. There's literally about three inches either side of the doorway opening and you can see from the driving position that it can be tricky to judge it because you are off to one side. Look how close the right hand side of the load platform is to the fuselage:

Edited August 1, 2020 by Chock

[scott967 62]

I have a friend who retired from FEDEX a couple years ago as an MD-10 captain (prior to that a 727 captain).  He said one consideration was the containers used for freight.  I guess there is considerable material handling equipment and FEDEX wanted to use identical containers if possible.  IIRC that made the 767 a good choice for them.

 

scott s.

.

 

 

[Chock 17,769]

That's almost certainly true, although to be honest there are only a few standard container sizes, and so aeroplanes are basically designed around these sizes, so there was probably a good chance that every widebody type was using the same type of containers anyway (AKEs if I recall correctly)