UPS Fleet Plans?

[Taildraggaah]

Anyone know what the plan is for aircraft at UPS beyond the 767 deliveries? 777f or 747-8f in the future?

 

[brownie]

Don't ever use UPS and future planning in one sentence. If you want to fly for living go to fedx and if you want to be a truck driver then brown is the place for you. As far as 777 or 74-800 I think fedx has all the orders but we recently bought some boats in Asia to compete with fedxs time critical business.:beer:

 

[B747FR8DAWG]

As far as 777 or 74-800 I think fedx has all the orders

I don't believe FedEx will be getting 747-8's, they might just stick with the twins 777, I believe we're the only U.S. operator to be flying the -8's, but now we're also getting twin engine aircraft 767's.

 

[GG747]

I was reading an article in Aviation Week a while back. It seems that UPS stated that they didn't want two types of B747's in the fleet. So they ordered some new B747-400F's but they prefered getting used -400F's after the line closed rather than buying the B747-8F.

Looking at UPS from the outside; I can see them getting more new B767's and possibly some new B777's. As far as the used market; I can see them getting some more B747-400's, MD-11's and B757's.

Those are my conclusions from the outside. Would someone who actually works for UPS please let me know if my conclusions are accurate or not.

 

[FO 4 Life]

I was reading an article in Aviation Week a while back. It seems that UPS stated that they didn't want two types of B747's in the fleet. So they ordered some new B747-400F's but they prefered getting used -400F's after the line closed rather than buying the B747-8F.

Looking at UPS from the outside; I can see them getting more new B767's and possibly some new B777's. As far as the used market; I can see them getting some more B747-400's, MD-11's and B757's.

Those are my conclusions from the outside. Would someone who actually works for UPS please let me know if my conclusions are accurate or not.

I would be shocked if UPS ever got another 757 since it is a narrow body (plus, it was built for UPS and I assume they have all they want already). I don't think they will get any more MD11s either. There were some for sale from Transmile that UPS passed on (I think FedEx eventually bought them). 777s - too expensive, take too long to get, another fleet type, etc.

If anything, I can see UPS getting some more 400Fs (they bought the oldest one already anyway). I wouldn't be surprised if they get the 800F if it is common with the 400F. If Boeing actually goes through with a 767-400F, that might be a player depending on range/payload numbers for a small/medium wide body.

.02

 

[EuroWheenie]

I'd be surprised if UPS didn't join the pack and went for the B777F. Our lot, and that goes from flight ops over tech, to ground handling, sales and bean counting, can't stop singing the praises of that bird.

The fuel burn, or rather lack thereof, when compared to a 747 is staggering; it burns less than half of a -200 and around 60% of a -400BCF. And that's hauling 107 tons, which for a 10 hour long haul missions is more than -200 can handle, and just about the same as a -400BCF will do.

 

[EuroWheenie]

Further on the B777F vs B744BCF fuel burn:

Had our dispatch dig out some numbers, asked them to find two similar flights and compare numbers. I know it's a sample of one and therefore as unscientific as it gets, but never the mind.

Both flights operated LEJ-HKG on the same day and within 6 hours of each other. ESAD difference according to FPL was less than 100 miles; apart from a minor dogleg over Russia and even smaller SID/STAR variances the routes were exactly the same.

B777F, payload 78.3 tons, underload 17.8, trip fuel 100.3
B744BCF, payload 76.5 tons, underload 23.1, trip fuel 137.6

Those are numbers that will see any bean counter grasping for his unformed tackle while bouncing around like a little girl. They tend to implode, though, when you drop the Boeing price list on their table

 

[PreContact]

I was reading an article in Aviation Week a while back. It seems that UPS stated that they didn't want two types of B747's in the fleet. So they ordered some new B747-400F's but they prefered getting used -400F's after the line closed rather than buying the B747-8F.

That's possible, but at least it's a common type rating for the two. I would say within the next 4 years, 60% chance of ordering 747-8Fs and a 50% chance of ordering 777s.

 

[brownie]

Man I like your prediction margins. Have you tried wall street.:beer:

 

[RJP]

What on earth would make you compare a 777F with a 744BCF? That's like comparing apples with.....hippopotami.

If you're going to put so much effort into a post, at least make it make a little sense. How about 744 ERF instead of the useless BCF?

Unless that's what you meant but screwed up the argument. If not, the 744F is a purpose-built freighter with a small upper deck, nose cone that opens and long-range capability. A BCF (Boeing Converted Freighter) is a dinosauric 20 year old 744 pax aircraft that has been converted-hence the name-by Boeing. Or, more likely, some shop in China.

CHEERS.

Further on the B777F vs B744BCF fuel burn:

Had our dispatch dig out some numbers, asked them to find two similar flights and compare numbers. I know it's a sample of one and therefore as unscientific as it gets, but never the mind.

Both flights operated LEJ-HKG on the same day and within 6 hours of each other. ESAD difference according to FPL was less than 100 miles; apart from a minor dogleg over Russia and even smaller SID/STAR variances the routes were exactly the same.

B777F, payload 78.3 tons, underload 17.8, trip fuel 100.3
B744BCF, payload 76.5 tons, underload 23.1, trip fuel 137.6

Those are numbers that will see any bean counter grasping for his unformed tackle while bouncing around like a little girl. They tend to implode, though, when you drop the Boeing price list on their table