UPS getting 20 BC-17's?

[thatsux]

Heard it from a UPS pilot.

 

[L'il J.Seinfeld]

It was a joke!!!! The C-17 is a terrible choice for a cargo plane. It meets the needs of the USAF, but we do not need to land on short or dirt runways, of airdrop our cargo. They tried to make it inot a tanker until they realized the fuel burn rates and how slow it flies.

 

[JimNtexas]

This has been talked about in Aviation Week several times in the last few years. The DoD has an idea that maybe they could subsidize a civil version of the C-17 in a CRAFT type program. These could fly boxes of civil frieght in peacetime, but be available to Uncle Sam if he needed them.

I don't know that anything has really come of the idea.

 

[Chronic Jetlag]

The C-17 has been in the process of getting "de-militarized" and getting FAA certified but the process has been stalled. Got a buddy I used to fly with who is actually working for the FAA out of the LGB office. Unless UPS intends to fly intra-China into unpaved runway the plane just don't make economic sense. It only carries around 170K lbs. of cargo vs. MD-11's 200K and it's slow and burns way too much gas with no range.

 

[JimNtexas]

...Unless UPS intends to fly intra-China into unpaved runway the plane just don't make economic sense. It only carries around 170K lbs. of cargo vs. MD-11's 200K and it's slow and burns way too much gas with no range.

I guess it depends on how much the goverment would subsidize the civil operators. I suppose there might be a win-win subsity level where the Air Force would be happy to have some backup C-17s available in a crisis for much less the cost of buying the airplanes outright, and where a civil operator could make a profit operating them in peacetime.

 

[Huck]

And the originals were 450 mil a pop....

 

[satpak77]

aint gonna happen...

rewind to 1970 and Pan Am should have bought C-141s and C-5's

didn't happen then either

 

[Hutchman]

I suppose there might be a win-win subsity level where the Air Force would be happy to have some backup C-17s available in a crisis for much less the cost of buying the airplanes outright,...

The US has plenty sitting around, they don't need anymore. Have you ever been to CHS???? They have 30 + sitting on the ground at any time. I would say they have plenty of backup. Subsity????? Don't forget the govenment spends 300-400 billion more than it brings in the past few years. Something will give...........

 

[L'il J.Seinfeld]

There is no surplus of C-17s. The hardest working pilots in America are C-17 drivers. They are pushing 1000 hours a year and all their flying is across the ponds crossing 5-6 time zones daily. Occasionally they get to land at BGD of Balad and get shot at.

 

[mar]

How does that joke go?

The C17 is coming with two pallets and a tanker....????

Apologies.

Nuthin worse than long haul at M0.75.

 

[GuinessGuy]

Surplus of C-17's in AMC..........Not!

It would be pretty cool to see the Gucci Boys in the "Big Brown" livery, but I highly doubt it. That aircraft does not even come close to the "economics" that a civil cargo company requires.
Although, I would love to see it!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"UPS 232 Heavy, 4 mile initial for the overhead, left break, we'll call the gear."

 

[ChicoC17]

Occasionally they get to land at BGD of Balad and get shot at.

Occasionally?? Before you say something like that you need to talk to somebody who is flying the C-17. Flying missions into Iraq and Afghanistan is what the C-17 does on a daily basis. As far as 30 airplanes on the ground at Charleston well some of those airplanes are sitting alert, flying local trainers etc. etc.

 

[L'il J.Seinfeld]

Occasionally they get to land at BGD of Balad and get shot at.

Occasionally?? Before you say something like that you need to talk to somebody who is flying the C-17. Flying missions into Iraq and Afghanistan is what the C-17 does on a daily basis. As far as 30 airplanes on the ground at Charleston well some of those airplanes are sitting alert, flying local trainers etc. etc.

I stand corrected. I was mainly referring to my USAFR brethren, but I acknowledge they are going there too!!

 

[L'il J.Seinfeld]

Heard it from a UPS pilot.

Did you also hear from a UPS pilot that our contract was almost done? That ones been going around for a long time too.

 

[MooseTrax]

$450M per C-17?

The highest number I have seen since 1998 has been $225M per jet for the initial buy. Last I heard it was down to a measley $170M to $180M per jet. Man, if we buy more they'll be really cheap!

 

[LJDRVR]

Just a bunch of PR garbage. Anybody else remember the C-5 artist renditions in Lufthansa colors? Nice thought, but makes no economic sense

 

[Mamma]

Before getting too far into the "it does not make any economic sense" argument, I would be curious to see what the going rate is for outsized cargo would be. I know our military is paying out the nose for the russkies to haul cargo for us in Iraq and Afghanistan due to the lack of airlift at times. I don't think the BC-17 would primarily be used to haul mail or a few pallets but outsized cargo that would not fit on the MD-11 or 747. Who knows, maybe mining companies, oil companies, timber, and the likes of Boeing and others who deal in large equipment might find a use for something like this. Their equipment does not always need to go to places with 10,000 ft runways with plenty of infrastructure needed to support a typical line cargo hauler. In addition, hearing lectures from the USAF AMC/CC a few years back, the military would help too by providing business and incentives to operate the aircraft. The C-17 is not the C-5 and to compare it on a capability and economics stance is not correct. If there is indeed a demand, this plane could turn a nice profit.

 

[L'il J.Seinfeld]

Ever heard of the A380 coming to UPS and FedEx? How about the 747-800? Much larger, more efficient, and cheaper than the C-17. AMC/CC? I put as much faith in anything he says as I do some of the jokers on these boards e.g. psysic, chuck yougurt, freight nazi.

 

[L'il J.Seinfeld]

Ever heard of the A380 coming to UPS and FedEx? How about the 747-800? Much larger, more efficient, and cheaper than the C-17. AMC/CC? I put as much faith in anything he says as I do some of the jokers on these boards e.g. psysic, chuck yougurt, freight nazi.

 

[AA717driver]

The 380 doesn't have the beefed-up floor or drive on/drive off capability that the C17 does.

There are a lot of missions that don't require AF-trained pilots to do. Why burn out your pilots and planes flying from CHS to FRA when civilians could do it. The AF could then take the load on to the desert.

The only reason UPS is talking about it is to try to tank the operation that is being spun up to operate C17's for the military. The idea was for this company to acquire "surplus" (read early build) C17's so the AF could get new planes and Boeing could keep the LGB line open longer. UPS and FEX didn't like that so they started pi$$ing in the cornflakes by calling their congresswhores and making a stink.

Now, the operation would have to buy BC17's new which has slowed down the process.

But I really don't know much about it...TC

 

[fly4unclesam]

As a C-17 driver, I can attest that there are much better aircraft to serve a civil cargo carrier. There might be a very limited market for a civil version, as it offers the capability to haul "rolling stock" (vehicles that can be driven on and off), in addition to palletized cargo. And then you can take that cargo into a remote airfield. But again, there is probably not much demand for that capability on the civil side. The same aerodynamic qualities that make it a great STOL aircraft make it a bad cruise/fuel efficient aircraft.

However, if they do make a civil version I will be glad to add the type rating to my ticket.

 

[Mamma]

I am a C-17 driver too and I think it could be a profitable airplane. What is the going rate for a A380 or 747-800? Can they land in the middle of nowhere in regards to the requirments for oil/mining companies? I have not heard anyone mention what the A380 or 747-800 bring to the table in this specific arena. C-17 is about $7000 an hour and can land just about anywhere. As I was saying, the rate for shipping outsize cargo is an unknown for the US unless you want to fly the unreliable Antonov over here and go through the customs gammot. Companies have to send outsize cargo by ship right now and maybe for some the long wait for the cruise and then the transportation to location may be too costly. I have read many companies just abaondon their equipment when they are done because the cost and hassle of shipping it back are too much. The C-17 changes the landscape and MAY crate a niche in the market. I am no expert on the commerical side but who knows. If the govt provides business and incentives, it could be a profitable plane in small numbers.