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

[belchfire]

While it is an interesting idea when you look at the numbers on the outfits doing limited operations with Hercs, the outsized cargo market is narrow...and who wants to fly a freighter that has a Microsoft joystick mounted to a peice of kindorf instead of a yoke???

 

[GCD]

L-1011-500 is dead on target about the C-17. Why would an airline buy something that needs three tankers to get anywhere? It's a good thing that Senators, retired General Officers and contrators can only shove it down the AF's throat, albeit at your expense.

 

[Coool Hand Luke]

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

A Volga-Dnepr AN-124 flys into KAFW every month or so transportating B-777 engines for AA. Seems like overkill, but quite impressive nonetheless.

 

[GittinFatter]

This will be a "niche" operation. It will not be a competitor for any current airline. Current airlines will supply cargo to this company, and they will then transport it to the short remote airstrip that an AN-124 could not get into.

The Whole idea is for this "Type" to be basically grandfathered in without the whole certification process.

Substance of rule from which relief is sought:​

Part 21 Section 27 – Issue of type certificate: surplus aircraft of the Armed Forces

states in 21.27(a) that “Except as provided in paragraph(b) of this section an
applicant is entitled to a type certificate for an aircraft in the normal, utility,
acrobatic, commuter, or transport category that was designed and constructed in the
United States, accepted for operational use, and declared surplus by, an Armed
Force of the United States, and that is shown to comply with the applicable
certification requirements in paragraph (f) of this section.”​

I think this will be a really cool operation to be associated with.

http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/p85/402582.pdf​

 

[MJH767]

I have a feeling Boeing must already have a customer, or they wouldn't have requested the waiver/exemption.

 

[MD11Drvr]

When all this was talked about prior to Iraqi freedom the specs I saw mentioned adding some fuel tanks to give it a 4500+/- NM range. I would cut its take-off roll payload for the fuel but it still would accomadate oversize frieght. At the time I worked for ATI and it was rumored that ATI and World were on the short list to get them in some sort of a joint Boeing/Air Force venture. It was supposed to increase production of spares to make the unit cost per cheaper. I am not sure how viable it would be but I would like to see the US have a heavy lift representive in the market place. Just my .02

 

[AerroMatt]

Might it be possible that someone with insider information is trying to convince the Air Force to declare surplus some of the older C17's to sell em to an operator at a bargain-basement price, instead of Boeing selling brand new ones to commercial operators? This could put heavy lift capability into the hands of a US commercial air carrier without the huge price tag. It would also maybe convince Congress to order more C17's to replace the older ones and keep that production line active for a few more years. Some interesting politics going on, but I hope it doesn't cost us taxpayers out the ying-yang like it usually does.

 

[rjacobs]

Replace older C-17's, werent the "oldest" only built in the early to mid 90's. These are not "old" by AF standards, or any aircraft standards. KC135, those are getting old. The C141, just finally retired the last one out of the fleet something like 2 years ago. F15, some are really old. I could go on. Does anybody read AW&ST. Boeing has 12 C-17's built or being built and unsold and the long lead items require a 36 month order timeframe, which the deadline for those parts is coming up in like 3-4 months. The C-17 is a badass airplane and I would love to fly one, but I dont think any cargo operators would want to pay to fly it. Way to expensive to purchase, maintain and fuel. I think the civilian market would be less than 12 aircraft(hell maybe even less than 6).

 

[AerroMatt]

Replace older C-17's, werent the "oldest" only built in the early to mid 90's. These are not "old" by AF standards, or any aircraft standards. KC135, those are getting old. The C141, just finally retired the last one out of the fleet something like 2 years ago. F15, some are really old. I could go on. Does anybody read AW&ST. Boeing has 12 C-17's built or being built and unsold and the long lead items require a 36 month order timeframe, which the deadline for those parts is coming up in like 3-4 months. The C-17 is a badass airplane and I would love to fly one, but I dont think any cargo operators would want to pay to fly it. Way to expensive to purchase, maintain and fuel. I think the civilian market would be less than 12 aircraft(hell maybe even less than 6).

I agree they are not "old" by anyone's standards. I am just speculating about the politics behind this proposal. It makes no sense at all for Boeing to sell new C17's to the civilian market... no one's gonna pay that kind of price tag. However, it MAY make some sense to someone to surplus the older ones and sell them for rock-bottom prices, no matter how "old" or not-so-old they may be.

Why else would this proposal be out there for an airplane no one is going to buy new (except another government)? I'm still trying to figure this one out.