Barbie Jet Freighter?

[AerroMatt]

This was posted on the Regionals section,

"Here's an article from todays ATW online:

Bombardier launched a new CRJ200PF (package freighter) conversion program that could extend the life of the 50-seaters as their appeal dims in favor of larger RJs. Sweden's West Air Europe is the launch customer and will acquire two previously owned CRJ200s for conversion to an all-cargo configuration. It now operates scheduled and charter package service with a fleet of 17 turboprops. "The CRJ200PF allows direct flights on longer, thin routes that are currently flown by larger aircraft," said Bombardier Regional Aircraft VP-Asset Management Rod Sheridan. "Since the introduction of the concept, considerable interest has been expressed by many prospective customers." In cargo configuration, the plane will have an estimated volume of 1,700 cu. ft. and 14,000 lb. Maximum takeoff weight will be about the same as the high-gross weight-version of the CRJ200 at 53,000 lb."

Comments anyone? Maybe this Swedish company is onto something. Has anyone heard of somebody bidding for the old 100's and 200's parked in the SoCal desert?

 

[big_al]

thats too bad, west air is one of the last operators of HS748's with the downfall of Emerald

 

[Captain Oveur]

I personally couldn't imagine it would be economical, but hey, I'm not
holding MYSELF up as a business genius

 

[AerroMatt]

Here's the link.

http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=5979

 

[texarkana]

How adaptable is the CRJ to freight? I read something a while ago about the ERJ-145 family being pretty unsuitable... something about the skin on the airframe being too thin to support some sort of freight mod, and the fuselage too small to install a firmer deck to support higher floor loading.

 

[AerroMatt]

How adaptable is the CRJ to freight? I read something a while ago about the ERJ-145 family being pretty unsuitable... something about the skin on the airframe being too thin to support some sort of freight mod, and the fuselage too small to install a firmer deck to support higher floor loading.

FWIW, Check out this thread: http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?t=83776

Several posts refer to the fact that the Challenger was originally designed for Fed Ex to replace its Falcons years ago, but Fed Ex instead went to B727's. Perhaps the CRJ floor could still handle the loading?

 

[FreightNazi]

Cool! UPS' scope says that anything with a payload over 12899 lbs. must be flown by IPA pilots and this one has a 14000 lb. payload! Imagine that with UPS' single payscale, you could be an RJ captain for $190 or $223/hr!!!

 

[HoursHore]

FedEx already had RJ's. They were called Falcons and the company has out grown them. We might not even replace our 727 and just use the A300's.

 

[CrimsonEclipse]

The feeders could use them. It's not like they have much of a
choice. They can't find any more turbo-props to save their
lives. At least the CRJ's are nice and cheap now.

(and there WILL be a loophole for the scope clause)


CE

 

[VABB]

More than likely you will see RJ-freighters flying car parts and other on-demand freight.

 

[VABB]

The feeders could use them. It's not like they have much of a
choice. They can't find any more turbo-props to save their
lives. At least the CRJ's are nice and cheap now.

(and there WILL be a loophole for the scope clause)


CE

Actually just read an article that stated turboprop production might increase over the next few years. CRJ's might be cheap at the start, but the operating costs are higher and will be more expensive in the long run. Also, there is still a large amount of turboprops out there in the used aircraft market, and they are turboprops are the only ones that can fill the feeder niche. They would replace the feeder-props with trucks before operating expensive little jets.

 

[fokkers&beer]

I agree with VABB, I flew the feeders for 6 years, and the Jet just doesn't fill that role efficiently. From what I remember the TProp is more efficient for flights up to 500 miles. Sorry Big Jet Guys, the RJs are just too inefficient for small hops like a feeders line.
Hey and what are you all complaining about, the ATR is a much more plush ride than the Old Whistle Pig.

 

[BoilerUP]

Nothing like hauling 14k worth of boxes while climbing at 500fpm all the way up to 290 for a two hour segment! What a performer!

 

[T-REX]

More than likely you will see RJ-freighters flying car parts and other on-demand freight.

Why not just get a DC9 and $6M in fuel?

 

[CrimsonEclipse]

Actually just read an article that stated turboprop production might increase over the next few years. CRJ's might be cheap at the start, but the operating costs are higher and will be more expensive in the long run. Also, there is still a large amount of turboprops out there in the used aircraft market, and they are turboprops are the only ones that can fill the feeder niche. They would replace the feeder-props with trucks before operating expensive little jets.

I aggree with the T-prop production increase, it's all about fuel.

Where (and what) are these T-props in the market you're talking about?
F-50? none, ATR? Fedex feeders can't find any. Do-328? you're kidding
right? Saab 340 Would be nice!

What other suggestions do you have?

CE

 

[FreightNazi]

I aggree with the T-prop production increase, it's all about fuel.

Where (and what) are these T-props in the market you're talking about?
F-50? none, ATR? Fedex feeders can't find any. Do-328? you're kidding
right? Saab 340 Would be nice!

What other suggestions do you have?

CE

Here you go!
http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=1081720&WxsIERv=Fnno%20340N&Wm=0&WdsYXMg=QUY%20Pnetb%20%28Fnvag-Rk%20Pnetb%29&QtODMg=Anfuivyyr%20-%20Vagreangvbany%20%28Zrgebcbyvgna%29%20%28OAN%20%2F%20XOAN%29&ERDLTkt=HFN%20-%20Graarffrr&ktODMp=Whar%2021%2C%202006&BP=0&WNEb25u=Wbua%20cnqtrgg&xsIERvdWdsY=KN-OZY&MgTUQtODMgKE=Sbezre%20A41KW.&YXMgTUQtODMgKERD=1343&NEb25uZWxs=2006-07-23%2000%3A02%3A25&ODJ9dvCE=&O89Dcjdg=340N-041&static=yes&width=1024&height=695&sok=JURER%20%20%28nvepensg_trarevp%20%3D%20%27Fnno%20340%27%29%20NAQ%20%28nveyvar%20YVXR%20%27QUY%25%27%20BE%20nveyvar%20YVXR%20%27Nqn%20Nve%20%28QUY%20Nvejnlf%29%25%27%20BE%20nveyvar%20YVXR%20%27ENS-Nivn%20Nveyvarf%20%28QUY%20Nvejnlf%29%25%27%29%20%20BEQRE%20OL%20cubgb_vq%20QRFP&photo_nr=1&prev_id=&next_id=NEXTID&size=L

 

[VABB]

Why not just get a DC9 and $6M in fuel?

My guess is that the RJ's would be considered to eventually replace DA-20's in the future. You will still have DC-9's and 737's, but they would be too costly to operate on a very short-haul with little freight on board.

RJ's are different. In the on-demand environment, the customer is willing to pay top-dollar for the shipment, and the RJ could be economical to operate in this particular market.

 

[VABB]

I aggree with the T-prop production increase, it's all about fuel.

Where (and what) are these T-props in the market you're talking about?
F-50? none, ATR? Fedex feeders can't find any. Do-328? you're kidding
right? Saab 340 Would be nice!

What other suggestions do you have?

CE

There are still plenty of T-props out there, both domestically and around the world. I'm sure if a company needs one bad enough, they could contact a broker and even purchase some used Saab 2000's.

Jetstream 31's and 41's are out there, as well as a lot of Saab 340's, Beech 1900's, and some EMB-120's. Also, if a company needs the lift bad enough and projects profitability with the purchase, some operators may elect to purchase some turboprop freighters brand new off the production line. The Dash-8's are still being produced, as well as the ATR's.

If it gets too costly, ground transportation is certainly an option. In fact, if the delivery range is 500 miles or less, the cost of trucking it is typically cheaper if the load is large enough and if it does not have to be there the same day. Many auto parts customers are starting to truck their shipments on legs 500 miles or less. In fact, Kitty Hawk just purchased a ground side to add to their their business.

You might see trucks begin to replace T-props on some routes instead of RJ's. Trucking has been written about quite a bit lately in Air Cargo World.

Companies are still going to be using and finding props. Given it might be more of a challenge, but they will find them. Not a prophecy, but based on what I've been reading in the cargo magazines look for trucks to play a bigger role in the on-demand market. With the feeders for the letters and boxes, I think props are still going to be around in large numbers.

 

[Windsor]

More than likely you will see RJ-freighters flying car parts and other on-demand freight.

Not gunna happen. Unless the price of the CRJ's is less than 2 mil a plane, nobody is going to buy them (auto part haulers). Besides, someone has to come up with a low cost STC for a freight door before anyone would even look at them.

 

[VABB]

Not gunna happen. Unless the price of the CRJ's is less than 2 mil a plane, nobody is going to buy them (auto part haulers). Besides, someone has to come up with a low cost STC for a freight door before anyone would even look at them.

Is there any thoughts on what may eventually replace the Falcons and Lears currently flying around? At one time I thought maybe the Lear 31's and 45's would replace the 20-series Lears, but they might be too expensive as well. Oh well, just curious.