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.

 

[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.