FAA Petition for Exemption to Re-certify the BC-17X for Commercial Use

[b757driver]

For those that may be interested:



The FAA has started to accept PUBLIC COMMENT on the "Petition of Exemption" so
that the BC-17X might be Recertified for Commercial Use. Please see our
INVITATION that is attached. It is a PDF file. Instructions on how to provide
public comment has been included. Use this link to submit your COMMENT:

http://dms.dot.gov

This opportunity will end on 7 August, 2006.

Please forward this Invitation to all who would like to see Commercial C-17s
(BC-17X) or those who might like to work for Cargo Force, Inc., should purchase
of aircraft be permitted.

Thanks for your continued support.

CF_Invitation1.pdf (683K)

 

[L-1011-500]

Are they going to buy tankers to drag them around too? The thing can't haul a crate of oranges from MIA to MCO without refueling. What a joke.

 

[AC560]

Are they going to buy tankers to drag them around too? The thing can't haul a crate of oranges from MIA to MCO without refueling. What a joke.

I know little about the capabilities of the C-17 but it would be a good thing for American cargo carriers if they had equipment capable of carrying heavy/oversized freight. There is a huge amount of cargo in this category and the only game in town is the Russians currently.

 

[bocefus]

Not a big demand for this. Most of the demand for Antonovs comes from NATO.

 

[AC560]

Most of the demand for Antonovs comes from NATO.

Most of the AN-124/225 operations are commerical in nature (see Air Foyle Heavylift). There is nothing the US commercial cargo sector has to offer to move drilling platforms, transformers, locomotives, and other extremely dense/out of gauge cargo around in. Not to mention since Tigers went away the knowledge of how to handle these types of loads on the freighters we do operate in the States is limited at best. There are still a couple of sharp FT guys at Polar but who knows how long they will be around for.

The smaller Antonov's though do a lot of relief work (so do the 124's/225's including support for US Military in Iraq) so perhaps this is what you are thinking of.

While the C-17 isn't ideal I would think its floor bearing weight would at least allow for a US carrier to suck up some of this cargo currently going to foreign carriers.

 

[bocefus]

Air Foyle no longer has any association with Antonov. The combined lift of Antonov Airlines and Volga-Dneper is marketed by Ruslan International. Effectively, that leaves two operators of all of the AN-224's and the one AN-225 in the world. Ruslan and Polet. Again, while there is a market, I wouldn't categorize it as huge.

 

[AC560]

Again, while there is a market, I wouldn't categorize it as huge.

They are putting together a second AN-225 and the reason for the market being small is that there aren't enough aircraft to support it. Currently though the US share in the market is 0% from a carrier perspective.

Giving American operators a chance to get into this business is a good thing in my opinion but I don't know how functional the C-17 would be for it.

 

[bocefus]

There are no plans to have more than 1 AN-225 airworthy. AN-124's are in production as well as a stage 4 IL-76. Please direct us to your source. The current price tag for a C-17 is in the neighborhood of 200 million USD. Add certification costs and take a wag at what you might think it would have to sell for on the commercial market to fetch a profit. Now think of one, just one American outsize carrier that might be able to afford one. The American market and operating structure cannot support this. The only justificable reasoning would be to have those freighters in the CRAF program for extra lift. You pointed out the fact that we are using both Antonov and Polet to supply Irax and Afganamoleo, so that pretty much blowa that theory. The BC-17 is simply not feasible.

 

[texarkana]

There are no plans to have more than 1 AN-225 airworthy. AN-124's are in production as well as a stage 4 IL-76. Please direct us to your source. The current price tag for a C-17 is in the neighborhood of 200 million USD. Add certification costs and take a wag at what you might think it would have to sell for on the commercial market to fetch a profit. Now think of one, just one American outsize carrier that might be able to afford one. The American market and operating structure cannot support this. The only justificable reasoning would be to have those freighters in the CRAF program for extra lift. You pointed out the fact that we are using both Antonov and Polet to supply Irax and Afganamoleo, so that pretty much blowa that theory. The BC-17 is simply not feasible.

Exactly. This illustrates one reason why most cargo operators out there are flying crusty old freighters like the one I do. Just look at the freight world: 727, DC8, 747 classic, DC10, and assortaed Antonov/Tupolev aircraft do alot of work for these guys. All of these aircraft are vintage 60s to early 80s. For the price of 1 C-17 you could start your own carrier.

The only reason there is a C-17 in the first place is because it is *multi-role* i.e. it can fill the role of strategic AND tactical airlift in wartime conditions.

 

[L-1011-500]

The only reason there is a C-17 in the first place is because it is *multi-role* i.e. it can fill the role of strategic AND tactical airlift in wartime conditions.

And also because there are plenty of Active and Retired Generals and congressmen getting lots of kickbacks too. The General staff in the Air Force tires to make it look like the savior to all our strategic airlift needs. It is really good at intra theater stuff but it is NOT a great choice for long haul. I know as a C-5 guy the Air Force is doing everything it can to make the C-5 look as bad as they can to make the C-17 shine. Yes the C-5 has it's share of problems but many could be fixed if you got somebody to run the fleet with some common sense. We are made to stop in places that we can easily overfly because the C-17s have to stop. As far as any carrier buying a commercial C-17 is laughable. Like an eariler post stated about older airplanes flying freight. It's all about the money. Do the math on a monthly payment on a 200 million dollar aircraft vs. a 15-20 million dollar aircraft. Even if the new one burns less fuel you have to generate a huge ammount of revenue to make the plane pay for itself.