McDonnell Douglas & Boeing To Merge -- Press Release Text
Helen Trillian Rose
McDonnell Douglas to Merge with Boeing
Combination to be world's largest aerospace company
WASHINGTON, D.C., December 15, 1996 - Phil Condit, president and chief
executive officer of The Boeing Company (NYSE : BA), and Harry
Stonecipher, president and chief executive officer of McDonnell Douglas
Corporation (NYSE : MD), jointly announced today that the companies have
signed a definitive agreement whereby McDonnell Douglas will merge with
Boeing in a stock-for-stock transaction.
Under the terms of the transaction, McDonnell Douglas shareholders will
receive 0.65 shares of Boeing common stock for each share of McDonnell
Douglas common stock. Based on the closing price of Boeing stock (96 3/4)
on Dec. 13, 1996, the deal is estimated to be worth approximately $13.3
billion. The transaction is subject to approval by the shareholders of
both companies and certain regulatory agencies, and is expected to close
as early as mid-1997.
The combined company will have about 200,000 employees, which includes the
recent merger of Rockwell aerospace and defense units into Boeing North
American. It will operate in 27 states with estimated 1997 revenues in
excess of $48 billion, making it the largest integrated aerospace company
in the world. The company will operate in three major locations: the Puget
Sound area of Washington state; St. Louis, Mo.; and Southern
California. The Boeing Company headquarters will remain in Seattle.
A combined transition team will be formed within the next few days to
prepare for the integration of the operations of the two companies after
the merger.
Condit noted the rich history of both companies and said, "Today's
announcement brings together two strong aerospace companies with
complementary capabilities. The merger enhances our position as the number
one aerospace company in the world and truly among the world's premier
industrial firms."
Stonecipher said, "This transaction puts together a focused, broad-based
aerospace company with extraordinary capabilities in commercial and
military aircraft, and defense and space systems.
The combined companies will offer an outstanding balance of current
production programs and those scheduled for production in the years ahead,
in addition to manned space programs and space transportation programs."
Following the close of the transaction, Condit will be chairman and chief
executive officer and Stonecipher will be president and chief operating
officer of the company. Two-thirds of a newly constituted board of
directors will be drawn from the current board members of Boeing and one
third of the members will be drawn from the current McDonnell Douglas
board.
While the company expects substantial cost savings, Condit said there are
significant growth opportunities in all three business segments as
well. He said, "The merger strengthens our competitive position for the
Joint Strike Fighter, it improves our position in space transportation,
and it enhances our ability to provide the best products and services to
our airline customers."
"This is great news for the airline industry, for our nation's defense
programs, and for space programs worldwide. The strength of our people,
and that of our infrastructure and financial position, will benefit our
customers and shareholders, and position us to meet the global aerospace
needs for the 21st century," Condit said.
CS First Boston is representing The Boeing Company, and JP Morgan has been
advising McDonnell Douglas.
Terry Schell
hr...@rocza.kei.com (Helen Trillian Rose) writes:
>McDonnell Douglas to Merge with Boeing
>Combination to be world's largest aerospace company
>WASHINGTON, D.C., December 15, 1996 - Phil Condit, president and chief
>executive officer of The Boeing Company (NYSE : BA), and Harry
>Stonecipher, president and chief executive officer of McDonnell Douglas
>Corporation (NYSE : MD), jointly announced today that the companies have
>signed a definitive agreement whereby McDonnell Douglas will merge with
>Boeing in a stock-for-stock transaction.
<snip>
The article did not mention if this merger has been approved by the
government. Does anyone have information or speculation about this?
Karl Swartz
>The article did not mention if this merger has been approved by the
>government. Does anyone have information or speculation about this?
The first paragraph you snipped off said:
The transaction is subject to approval by the shareholders of
both companies and certain regulatory agencies, and is expected
to close as early as mid-1997.
"Certain regulatory agencies" means the government. Since the deal
was closed on Saturday (and announced on Sunday), the government has
not had much time to give it any thought yet, much less approve it.
Wall Street seems to think it will not meet with much resistance,
since the two companies are quite complementary. I agree. On the
commercial side (most relevant to these newsgroups), MD's recent
statement that they were not going to pursue the MD-12 project
merely confirmed the obvious fact that their commercial business was
dying. No real anti-trust issue there.
Losing a spot in the final runoff for the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
also put MD's long-term military future in some doubt. Of the final
two contestants, Lockheed-Martin is seen as more conservative while
Boeing promises a better overall deal *if* they can actually do it.
MD's military experience gives the Boeing JSF program a boost in its
weak spot, to the military's benefit.
--
Karl Swartz |Home k...@chicago.com
|Work k...@netapp.com
|WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/
Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills
jfmezei
Out of curiosity, would there be any warranted efforts to stop this
merger because of anti-competitive forces (or over concentration) ?
While I personally never really liked McD products, I am saddened to
see such a big corp go. It will be very interesting to see what Boeing
does with the DC-9 line of planes (easier to say DC-9 than all the
different derivatives that are current).
I have a distinct impression that McD will loose its
personality/presence in the commercial airline business and that Boeing
will
basically gobble that part up and "paint" it Boeing. Is this a fair
assumption ?
Karl Swartz
>Out of curiosity, would there be any warranted efforts to stop this
>merger because of anti-competitive forces (or over concentration) ?
With relatively little business overlap, it seems unlikely. (MD's
commercial division was soon to be dead anyway.)
>While I personally never really liked McD products, I am saddened to
>see such a big corp go.
I never really thought much of McDonnell, but finally losing the last
vestiges of a historic company like Douglas seems tragic.
>It will be very interesting to see what Boeing does with the DC-9
>line of planes
The MD-95 is almost surely dead. If ValuJet had't pushed them to make
it bigger, perhaps it might have survived as Boeing's 100-seat plane,
but even that would have been a long-shot.
It will be interesting to see what Boeing does about the MD-80/90. On
the one hand, Boeing doesn't want to compete with the 737. But Boeing
also doesn't want to alienate big customers by causing a huge, instant
devaluation of their MD-80/90 fleets. Delta, for example, might not
be thrilled with a huge write-off on the MD-88 and MD-90-30 fleets.
We might see Boeing offer some sort of trade-in deal to soothe things,
and not incidentally to try to keep Airbus' foot out of the door.
>I have a distinct impression that McD will loose its
>personality/presence in the commercial airline business and that
>Boeing will basically gobble that part up and "paint" it Boeing.
>Is this a fair assumption ?
Seems fair to me, at least on the commercial side. The only Douglas
piece which *might* have some staying power is the MD-11F -- it has
a niche for which Boeing doesn't have a good answer, and with most of
the development costs already having been written-off, it might be
cost effective to keep it. With Boeing behind the plane, it would
have less risk than as a product of a feeble Douglas. If they can
convince Congress that there should be a KC-11, so much the better.
(I have no idea if there have ever been any serious discussions of a
tanker version of the MD-11.)
J. Heilig
Karl Swartz wrote:
> If they can
> convince Congress that there should be a KC-11, so much the better.
> (I have no idea if there have ever been any serious discussions of a
> tanker version of the MD-11.)
I've never heard any talk of a "KC-11", but it's highly unlikely.
Boeing has been touting the 767 Tanker Transport to the USAF and foreign
customers. This is especially so now that the Japanese have the "E-767"
AWACS platform about to go in service.
The USAF really doesn't need another tanker for a number of years yet.
It's hard to kill KC-135s, and AFAIK, the USAF intends to keep them in
service for at least another 20-25 years.
Jennings Heilig
Niraj Agarwalla
jfmezei (nospam....@videotron.ca) wrote:
: Out of curiosity, would there be any warranted efforts to stop this
: merger because of anti-competitive forces (or over concentration) ?
I don't see why not. McDonnell Douglas is a distant third when it comes to
commercial airlines, so anti-competitive forces aren't the issue. Boeing
wants to purchase McDonnell Douglas for it's defense business: The F/A-18E/F,
the MD-17, etc. By purchasing McDonnell Douglas, Boeing hopes to avoid
the cyclical pitfalls that usually plague the commercial unit. I think this
was another reason why it bought Rockwell's Space & Defense unit awhile back.
: While I personally never really liked McD products, I am saddened to
: see such a big corp go. It will be very interesting to see what Boeing
: does with the DC-9 line of planes (easier to say DC-9 than all the
: different derivatives that are current).
Me, too. They might keep the MD-11 going if the freighters sell well.
MD-90 is already in production, so I don't know if they want to shut it
down, or somehow squeeze it into their product lines. MD-80 production is
basically winding down. I think the MD-95s will be cancelled, with
Valujet's orders or not.
: I have a distinct impression that McD will loose its
: personality/presence in the commercial airline business and that Boeing
: will
: basically gobble that part up and "paint" it Boeing. Is this a fair
: assumption ?
It's true. The new company will retain the name of Boeing. Of course, if
this merger goes through (I don't see why not), then this will be an end
of an era of a wonderful company. They have produced so many different
types of aircraft over the years: DC-3, F-4s, A-4s, F/A-18s, DC-9s, DC-10s,
etc.
--
Niraj Agarwalla - naga...@cs.uml.edu - http://www.hardlink.com/~niraj
Niraj Agarwalla
Airbus said that they would try to block the deal? To they have a case?
C. Marin Faure
In article <airliners...@ohare.Chicago.COM>,
tsc...@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Terry Schell) wrote:
> The article did not mention if this merger has been approved by the
> government. Does anyone have information or speculation about this?
According to the Seattle Times, the merger is expected to take up to six
months to finalize, and it is not expected that there will be any problems
clearing it with the government.
C. Marin Faure
author, Flying a Floatplane
C. Marin Faure
In article <airliners...@ohare.Chicago.COM>,
nospam....@videotron.ca wrote:
> Out of curiosity, would there be any warranted efforts to stop this
> merger because of anti-competitive forces (or over concentration) ?
>
> While I personally never really liked McD products, I am saddened to
> see such a big corp go. It will be very interesting to see what Boeing
> does with the DC-9 line of planes (easier to say DC-9 than all the
> different derivatives that are current).
>
> I have a distinct impression that McD will loose its
> personality/presence in the commercial airline business and that Boeing
> will
> basically gobble that part up and "paint" it Boeing. Is this a fair
> assumption ?
Don't know about the future of the MD airplanes, but the Seattle Times
reported that the name of the new company will be "Boeing." The
McDonnell/Douglas name apparently will be retained for some divisions of
the new company, but the overall name will remain Boeing. Harry
Stonecipher, the current head of McDonnell/Douglas, is relocating to
Seattle where he will be president of the Boeing Company, reporting to
Phil Condit.
Andrew Boyd
jfmezei <nospam....@videotron.ca> wrote:
>Out of curiosity, would there be any warranted efforts to stop this
>merger because of anti-competitive forces (or over concentration) ?
Surely you jest. A lack of competition in the airline manufacturing
business?!
Things sure are different in the usa, compared to overseas. In
japan, MITI encourages strong, if not outright predator-like domestic
industry. In europe, govt's pour taxpayer dollars into airbus
specifically for the purpose of defeating boeing, a private-sector
company.
And while all this co-operation [if not outright collusion] is going
on between foreign govt's and companies, the usa sweats the sherman
anti-trust act. Incredible.
--
#include <std.disclaimer>
jfmezei
Karl Swartz wrote:
> Seems fair to me, at least on the commercial side. The only Douglas
> piece which *might* have some staying power is the MD-11F -- it has
> a niche for which Boeing doesn't have a good answer, and with most of
> the development costs already having been written-off, it might be
> cost effective to keep it.
I was under the impression that the 777 "family" would eventually
encompass all of the MD11's functions. Is this the case ? or will the
MD11 retain some distinct advantage over the 777 for certain functions ?
(freight ?)
Karl Swartz
>the Seattle Times reported that the name of the new company will be
>"Boeing."
The Wall Street Journal said a dispute over the name almost led to the
collapse of the deal, but the MD folks finally gave in.
>Harry Stonecipher, the current head of McDonnell/Douglas ... will be
>president of the Boeing Company
President and also Chief Operating Officer (COO).
Christopher B. Stone
In article <airliners...@ohare.Chicago.COM>,
jfmezei <nospam....@videotron.ca> wrote:
>Out of curiosity, would there be any warranted efforts to stop this
>merger because of anti-competitive forces (or over concentration) ?
I don't see any anti-trust problems, myself. On the civilian side of the
equation, McDonnell-Douglas had increasingly become a niche player in
commercial aviation: only the MD80/90 planes were commercially viable, and
even the MD95 derivative did not seem to be selling well. Furthermore,
Airbus will continue to provide more than enough competition for Boeing.
Far from being an example of anti-competitive pratices, this move
demonstrates how the free market should work: new companies (Airbus) force
existing companies to compete (Boeing) or restructure (McD). Fortunately,
Boeing's civilian products are in such demand that few layoffs should
occur at McD, and certainly fewer than would have occurred had McD tried
to slug it out alone.
On the military side of the equation, Lockheed, as well as Eurofighter,
continue to provide competition for Boeing; McD will bring some
comparative advantage to Beoeing in this area as well.
--
Chris Stone * cbs...@princeton.edu * http://www.princeton.edu/~cbstone
"In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been
granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger.
I do not shrink from this responsibility. I welcome it." -JFK
Karl Swartz
>I was under the impression that the 777 "family" would eventually
>encompass all of the MD11's functions. Is this the case ? or will the
>MD11 retain some distinct advantage over the 777 for certain functions ?
>(freight ?)
I've never heard any mention of a 777 freighter, though there probably
are plans for one eventually. Compared to the MD-11F, I'd guess it
would lift significantly less payload, without a correspondingly lower
operating cost. Above the MD-11F, the 747-400F only offers about 30%
more lift and a lot of extra, useless space, for a much higher initial
and operating cost. That's why the MD-11 has been popular as a cargo
plane.
Unless the 777 can do better than I'd expect, I think there's still a
niche for the MD-11 as a freighter.
Randy Treadway
> If they can
>convince Congress that there should be a KC-11, so much the better.
>(I have no idea if there have ever been any serious discussions of a
>tanker version of the MD-11.)
Discussions, yes- serious, probably not.
There is more of a market worldwide for conversion of existing
DC-10 (or perhaps someday MD-11) airframes to tanker versions.
That's what McD-D is doing right now under contract for the
Dutch Air Force. Three-engined wide bodies like DC-10s,
MD-11s and L1011s make nice wing pod refuelers because
pods can be mounted outboard of wing engines without
turbulence which a four-engined plane like 747 would
generate. For boom refueling, high exhaust location of
DC-10/MD-11 center engine is better than through-the-tail
exhaust of L1011- too much wake turbulence.
Also, most L1011 airframes worldwide are now racking up
too high hours to be worth much in the retrofit arena.
There have also been discussions about KC-17's- but again
not that seriously. As far as the U.S. is concerned, there's just
not a big gap in the USAF for their air refueling needs- they're
doing pretty well with their existing mix of KC-135's and KC-10's.
There is a very serious proposal just submitted to Great Britain
for C-17's because the RAF has soured on European Large
Transport Aircraft project and thinks they have a good case
for more immediate procurement to meet their worldwide
Quick Response needs. They may want C-17s with
underwing refueling pods (drogue chute type like C-130's use),
although they have retrofitted a bunch of L1011's for that
role not too long ago.
Within McD-D, there has been some internal strife the last
couple of years between the Military Transport A/C division
and the Douglas A/C division over pushing MD-17 vs
MD-11. Looks now like MD-17 will definitely get the marketing
nod from Boeing, and *may have* got the go-ahead anyway
even without the merger. Only real market competitor
worldwide is the Antonov An124, although potential sales
may be limited to a couple of dozen. Still, the USAF would like
to see that because of C-17 reopener clauses which allow them
to share in production rate savings if MD-17 sales happen.
McDonnell Douglas MTA saw in the next five years potential
for serious bids to replace Air Force C-9As (Medivac equipped
DC-9s with cargo door) as well as Navy C-9Bs (virtually off-the-shelf
DC-9s). A little further down the road was replacement of
Air Force Andrews AFB 'exec fleet' C-9s used by State Dept
and other gov't. pooh-bahs. Likely airframe was MD-90 series. That
potential will probably now be seriously questioned given Boeing's
likely push of their 737 for those short-haul military roles.
Note: British C-17 sale is *not* a MD-17 version, but a
straight U.S. C-17 FMS sale, probably via USAF contract
with McD-D/Boeing..
Randy
McDonnell Douglas- MTA- Long Beach
(*opinions are my own and not those of McDonnell Douglas
<or Boeing!!> )
Bahadir Acuner
Karl Swartz wrote:
>
> >Out of curiosity, would there be any warranted efforts to stop this
> >merger because of anti-competitive forces (or over concentration) ?
>
> commercial division was soon to be dead anyway.)
Well, that's a perspective to that. However, if you just take the market
share perspective there are couple of ways for FTC and Dept. of Justice
to look at this. For instance the Herfindahls index. You basically take
the square of the company marketshares in the industry and add them
together. If you get a value > .60 then the industry is a monopoly.
If DoJ deals with the US market share only then we definetely get a
value higher than .60..
> The MD-95 is almost surely dead. If ValuJet had't pushed them to make
> it bigger, perhaps it might have survived as Boeing's 100-seat plane,
> but even that would have been a long-shot.
Of course, the issue that we will be discussing will be if Valujet will
be around or not with the potential market growth that would give enough
bottom line to support 50 brand new jets...
> It will be interesting to see what Boeing does about the MD-80/90. On
> the one hand, Boeing doesn't want to compete with the 737. But Boeing
> also doesn't want to alienate big customers by causing a huge, instant
> devaluation of their MD-80/90 fleets. Delta, for example, might not
> be thrilled with a huge write-off on the MD-88 and MD-90-30 fleets.
> We might see Boeing offer some sort of trade-in deal to soothe things,
> and not incidentally to try to keep Airbus' foot out of the door.
I have a feeling that a 100 or 70 pax derivative of MD family jets would
be a good product to keep in their product line.
--
Bahadir Acuner bacu...@vt.edu
Virginia Tech bacu...@cslab.vt.edu
Blacksburg, VA http://csugrad.cs.vt.edu/~bacuner1
U.S.A
t. smith
Karl Swartz wrote:
>
> I've never heard any mention of a 777 freighter, though there probably
> are plans for one eventually. Compared to the MD-11F, I'd guess it
> would lift significantly less payload, without a correspondingly lower
> operating cost. Above the MD-11F, the 747-400F only offers about 30%
> more lift and a lot of extra, useless space, for a much higher initial
> and operating cost. That's why the MD-11 has been popular as a cargo
> plane.
>
> Unless the 777 can do better than I'd expect, I think there's still a
> niche for the MD-11 as a freighter.
Federal Express has bought up nearly DC-10 on planet Earth for use in
their cargo operations. After their recent purchases from UAL and AA, I
bet FedEx has over 50% of the currently operation DC-10s in the world.
My question to you is : What is it about the DC-10/MD-11 that makes it
such an outstanding cargo airplane ?
thomas
--
mailto:trs...@prado.com
http://www.prado.com/~trsmith
Jorge Bela-Kindelan
Very often we read on this newsgroup references to government
subsidies in Europe. NASA is engaging in projects directly aimed
at improving the competitive edge of US companies. In the last
few weeks NASA press releases refer to several successes in areas
such as engine performance and supersonic passenger flights. I
am not sure if these programs are tax-payer funded, perhaps a reader could
clarify this, but if they are it seems that certain forms of government
help are indeed aceptable to (and acepted by) US airlinercompanies.
Jorge Bela
Steve Lacker
> >It will be very interesting to see what Boeing does with the DC-9
> >line of planes
>
> The MD-95 is almost surely dead.
Agreed.
> It will be interesting to see what Boeing does about the MD-80/90. On
> the one hand, Boeing doesn't want to compete with the 737. But Boeing
> also doesn't want to alienate big customers by causing a huge, instant
> devaluation of their MD-80/90 fleets
I'm not sure that is a big factor really. Most airlines have purchased all
the MD-8x aircraft they plan to, so shutting down MD-8x production isn't
that big a deal. The MD-8xs out there will go on flying through their life
cycle whether or not McD belongs to Boeing or not. Does the mere fact that
they are no longer in production render them "devalued?" In fact, I would
say that the introduction of the MD-90 did more to devalue the MD-80 than
stopping MD-80 production would. Cessation of production of the 727
certainly didn't make any airline start unloading them in a hurry back in
the early 80's!
As for the MD 90- thats a different story! Since its just been being
delivered for about a year now, its in a sticky spot. Delta, for example,
has a substantial number in their fleet, and as you pointed out might not
appreciate having the plug pulled right now. Given how long Boeing
continued to trickle out the 707 airframe at a low volume of production, I
would not be surprised to see the MD-90 have a fairly "normal" life cycle,
although without any further derivatives.
On the OTHER hand... American has already committed to Boeing, with no
planned orders for the MD-90. Depending on what other airlines around the
world decide, the MD-90 "problem" may not be a problem at all...
> >I have a distinct impression that McD will loose its
> >personality/presence in the commercial airline business and that
>
> Seems fair to me, at least on the commercial side. The only Douglas
> piece which *might* have some staying power is the MD-11F
With both American and Delta showing marked DISinterest in the MD-11, I
suspect that it is dead as a passenger aircraft already, and if the
commercial version of the C-17 comes on line, wouldn't it better serve the
needs of FexEx etc. than an MD-11F? Maybe not, in which case you may be
right. One thing that I would bet on heavily is that no all-new "McDonnell
Douglas" planes will be introduced. From what I can see, the airliner
business isn't like the automotive world, where Chrysler can buy AMC then
benefit from introducing a brand new Jeep years after the original company
has been absorbed. That leaves the problem, yet again, of the MD-90. Surely
it won't be re-badged as a Boeing 7-something-7, so if it is still
produced, I would expect it to go on as the last "McDonnell Douglas"
passenger aircraft made.
> (I have no idea if there have ever been any serious discussions of a
> tanker version of the MD-11.)
My impression has been that the USAF really won't be needing a tanker any
time soon. Last I read, the re-engined KC-135 is supposed to be in service
until around 2030!! If a new tanker IS required, I'd bet on a 767
derivative.
--
Stephen Lacker
Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas at Austin
PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029
512-835-3286 sla...@arlut.utexas.edu
Karl Swartz
>> The MD-95 is almost surely dead.
>Agreed.
Stonecipher apparently says it will be built. Coincidentally, this
week's AW&ST says the nose structure for the first MD-95 arrived in
Long Beach (from McDonnell Douglas Aerospace in Huntington Beach).
Assembly of the first MD-95 is due to start in April.
>The MD-8xs out there will go on flying through their life
>cycle whether or not McD belongs to Boeing or not. Does the mere fact that
>they are no longer in production render them "devalued?"
The market value of F100s and F70s took a steep dive when Fokker went
under, and hasn't really recovered even though the spares operation
was quickly sold and is on solid ground. I'm not sure if that's a
good comparison or not, but think of fleet commonality. Reno Air, for
example, has an MD-80/MD-90 fleet, and they derive a lot of the same
benefits as Southwest does from an all-737 fleet.
Today, if you were starting an airline in a similar business, which
aircraft would you choose? Even buying used, the MD-80/90 is now at a
disadvantage to the 737 and A319/320/321, because in time you'll want
new planes and with the MD-80/90 you may not be able to get them, even
though Boeing/MacDAC is saying they'll continue production.
>In fact, I would say that the introduction of the MD-90 did more to
>devalue the MD-80 than stopping MD-80 production would.
I think the MD-80 could have been worse if there were not a fairly
painless path to a more state-of-the-art aircraft.
>> Seems fair to me, at least on the commercial side. The only Douglas
>> piece which *might* have some staying power is the MD-11F
>With both American and Delta showing marked DISinterest in the MD-11, I
>suspect that it is dead as a passenger aircraft already ...
That's why I specifically said MD-11*F*. I agree, the passenger MD-11
is essentially dead.
>... and if the commercial version of the C-17 comes on line, wouldn't
>it better serve the needs of FexEx etc. than an MD-11F?
The MD-17 (commercial C-17) may lift greater weights, and has that
nice rear cargo door for really big stuff. I don't see where either
is of great value to a package carrier like FedEx or UPS, though.
FedEx also has built up a huge fleet of MD-11s and DC-10s, and the
commonality is worth a fair amount to them. I've heard that they are
nevertheless interested in the MD-17, but if true, I'd think it would
be for a different mission than the MD-11F, and thus would not
preclude more MD-11F purchases.
>My impression has been that the USAF really won't be needing a tanker any
>time soon. Last I read, the re-engined KC-135 is supposed to be in service
>until around 2030!!
They also have the KC-10s, which I think are being upgraded to a
cockpit similar to the MD-11 and/or C-17.
>If a new tanker IS required, I'd bet on a 767 derivative.
That sounds like the winning bet.
Niels Sampath
In article <airliners...@ohare.Chicago.COM>
naga...@cs.uml.edu "Niraj Agarwalla" writes:
>Airbus said that they would try to block the deal? To they have a case?
There has been no word of this in the Press on this (east)
side o' the Pond.
In fact there is comment that privately Airbus is relieved
that they can go one-on-one with Boeing without having to
look over their shoulder for cheap offers of MD-11s or MD-95s etc.
Remember that both Valujet and USAir considered MD-95s as well
as Airbus and Boeing products (with different results obviously).
One might consider the Valujet MD-95 sale in the same sort
of light that Boeing fans consider the min-Bus sale to USAir(ways),
i.e. possibly cheaper than the planes are worth.
--
-Niels
http://www.zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.......................
Niels Sampath
>Airbus said that they would try to block the deal? To they have a case?
Further to my repky where I said I hadn't heard anything about the above,
I now read that the `EU Commission may block the deal if it affects
competetion'. Maybe there is some relevant GATT clause but it is
probably just impotent bluster and probably stems from defence concerns
rather than Airbus itself.
--
-Niels
Niels Sampath
In article <airliners...@ohare.Chicago.COM>
ko...@earthlink.net "Randy Treadway" writes:
-snip-
>There is a very serious proposal just submitted to Great Britain
>for C-17's because the RAF has soured on European Large
>Transport Aircraft project and thinks they have a good case
>for more immediate procurement to meet their worldwide
>Quick Response needs. They may want C-17s with
>underwing refueling pods (drogue chute type like C-130's use),
>although they have retrofitted a bunch of L1011's for that
>role not too long ago.
>Note: British C-17 sale is *not* a MD-17 version, but a
>straight U.S. C-17 FMS sale, probably via USAF contract
>with McD-D/Boeing..
Unless a lot of assembly/what-have-you is transferred to the UK,
I wouldn't hold my breathe waiting for any RAF order. Especially
with the Tory government set to get the boot within a few months.
--
-Niels
Michael Hore
ab...@qnx.com (Andrew Boyd) writes:
>...
>In europe, govt's pour taxpayer dollars into airbus
>specifically for the purpose of defeating boeing, a private-sector
>company.
Could you substantiate this assertion, please?
I asked the same question here a couple of weeks ago, and
the answer appeared to be that some European governments
gave Airbus *loans*, earlier on, which Airbus is
now in the process of paying off. Nobody gave any
substantive information that any taxpayers' money is
currently going into Airbus.
But if you have any other information, I'm sure we'd all
be grateful to hear it.
Cheers, Mike.
--
Mike Hore mi...@zeta.org.au
J. Heilig
Karl Swartz wrote:
> The MD-17 (commercial C-17) may lift greater weights, and has that
> nice rear cargo door for really big stuff. I don't see where either
> is of great value to a package carrier like FedEx or UPS, though.
I've heard the factor of an almost total lack of scissor lifts, etc as
being a major point in favor of a FedEx and/or UPS MD-17 purchase. That
would allow them to cut *way* down on some fairly expensive ground
support equipment if they could simply roll cargo in and out of the rear
ramp. It would also save time and manhours in handling cargo, and with
FedEx especially, every saved second counts bigtime...
Jennings Heilig
matt weber
In article <airliners...@ohare.Chicago.COM>, jhe...@gate.net says...
Perhaps, but that cargo ramp costs weight, and complexity. While the ground
equipment bay be expensive, it is nothing compared to what it costs in an
aircraft, or the cost of flying it a few million miles a year.(not to
mention that a mechanical problem with renders an aircraft that costs 100
million dollars or so useless until it is fixed!
The military goes that route because there is no assurance they can get
those facilities on the ground where they are going, so they have to pay
the price. It isn't clear to me that the price is likely to be attactive
to a commercial carrier.
my opinions anyway.
John Clear
In article <airliners...@ohare.Chicago.COM>,
matt weber <ma...@firstsol.com> wrote:
>> I've heard the factor of an almost total lack of scissor lifts, etc as
>>being a major point in favor of a FedEx and/or UPS MD-17 purchase. That
>>would allow them to cut *way* down on some fairly expensive ground
>>support equipment if they could simply roll cargo in and out of the rear
>>ramp. It would also save time and manhours in handling cargo, and with
>>FedEx especially, every saved second counts bigtime...
>
>Perhaps, but that cargo ramp costs weight, and complexity. While the ground
>equipment bay be expensive, it is nothing compared to what it costs in an
>aircraft, or the cost of flying it a few million miles a year.(not to
>mention that a mechanical problem with renders an aircraft that costs 100
>million dollars or so useless until it is fixed!
I dont see a cargo ramp as being much more complex then a standard
cargo door. Bigger hinges/etc, but not that much more complex.
And while there is some wieght penalty, the cargo door is shoved
up under the tail, which is usually just 'wasted' space anyway.
Being able to just slide the pallets right out the back and onto
a truck is much more efficient then slide one out, scissor lift it
and then slide it onto a truck.
As for the 'if it breaks, the plane is useless until fixed' arguement,
there are alot of parts on any plane in that category. If anything
the cargo door will probably break less often then on the military
version since a pallet of overnight mail is just a bit lighter then
a tank or other typical military cargo.
Will FedEx/UPS find the MD-17 attractive? Possibly, but it looks like
the bean counters are going to have to call this one. it is four
engined, which means more maintence, but the cargo operators fly alot
of older planes. I dont know if UPS/FedEx fly B707 or DC-8s any more,
but DHL/etc do, and FedEx is buying old B727s, so amounts of maintence
a plane requires is given much different consideration then the passenger
carriers.
A purple MD-17 would look rather silly next to a green one though...
John
--
John Clear - j...@panix.com PP-ASEL 1Lt, CAP-CAWG http://www.panix.com/~jac
"They're all lawyers, and think that the laws of physics can be amended with
a voice vote." -- Mary Shafer (sha...@ursa-major.spdcc.com) on Politicians
Ben
jfmezei <nospam....@videotron.ca> wrote:
>Karl Swartz wrote:
>> Seems fair to me, at least on the commercial side. The only Douglas
>> piece which *might* have some staying power is the MD-11F -- it has
>> a niche for which Boeing doesn't have a good answer, and with most of
>> the development costs already having been written-off, it might be
>> cost effective to keep it.
>I was under the impression that the 777 "family" would eventually
>encompass all of the MD11's functions. Is this the case ? or will the
>MD11 retain some distinct advantage over the 777 for certain functions ?
>(freight ?)
MD 11F advantage is developped and commercialized to famous compagnies
than FDX, DLH, .... A 777 freighter version will cost some money which
can be use to develop the twelve boeing projects.
THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE
Ben
Robert Dorsett
In article <airliners...@ohare.Chicago.COM> ni...@lofgren.demon.co.uk writes:
>In article <airliners...@ohare.Chicago.COM>
> naga...@cs.uml.edu "Niraj Agarwalla" writes:
>
>>Airbus said that they would try to block the deal? To they have a case?
>
>Further to my repky where I said I hadn't heard anything about the above,
>I now read that the `EU Commission may block the deal if it affects
>competetion'.
It's interesting, but nowhere have I seen any stated intent by Condit
et al to "destroy" Airbus. However, the literature is rife with comments
by Airbus's head, Jean Pierson, to the effect that his mission in life is
to "bury" Boeing. Such comments were only ameliorated after the recent
orders by US carriers, probably out of fear that they could be considered
"anti-US."
So if it comes down to "anticompetitive" pressures, we have one organization
with the destruction (or, more realistically, containment) of its opponent
as a central component of its business plan and a reason for its existence,
and the other company trying to turn a buck for its shareholders.
--
Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation
r...@netcom.com aero-si...@wilbur.pr.erau.edu
ftp://wilbur.pr.erau.edu/pub/av
wohlsen
In article <airliners...@ohare.Chicago.COM>, fau...@halcyon.com
(C. Marin Faure) wrote:
The
> McDonnell/Douglas name apparently will be retained for some divisions of
> the new company, but the overall name will remain Boeing.
I assume the deal includes the MD Helicopters Division (ex Hughes),
perhaps it will retain the MD name.
Bob Wohlsen
Oliver Raff
Niels Sampath wrote:
>
> In article <airliners...@ohare.Chicago.COM>
> naga...@cs.uml.edu "Niraj Agarwalla" writes:
>
> >Airbus said that they would try to block the deal? To they have a case?
>
> Further to my repky where I said I hadn't heard anything about the above,
> I now read that the `EU Commission may block the deal if it affects
> probably just impotent bluster and probably stems from defence concerns
> rather than Airbus itself.
It is not just impotent bluster as the European Commision already
stopped an all American merger in the chemical industrie before.
(I have to look up the companies involved - if someone is interested).
The EC said that they will examine the market shares of the new
Boeing-MD company in Europe and might veto the merging. According to
a newspaper article a few days ago, Boeing already contacted the EC
about the deal. Again, if someone is interested, I'll translate the
article and post it. Additionally, I have an interview with Manfred
Bischoff, the head of DASA, which subjects "indirect" US subsidies to
the American aviation industrie. I could post that in a translation,
too.
later
oli
--
Oliver Raff Mittelstrasse 15
or...@studbox.uni-stuttgart.de 70180 Stuttgart
Elekrotechnik - Universitaet Stuttgart ++49-711-604378
Ben
"t. smith" <trs...@prado.com> wrote:
> Federal Express has bought up nearly DC-10 on planet Earth for use in
>their cargo operations. After their recent purchases from UAL and AA, I
>bet FedEx has over 50% of the currently operation DC-10s in the world.
>My question to you is : What is it about the DC-10/MD-11 that makes it
>such an outstanding cargo airplane ?
There is no modern aircraft in freigther in this category except B747
400F. But the return on investment on the boeing is vey difficult as
Cargolux says.
Ben
naga...@cs.uml.edu (Niraj Agarwalla) wrote:
>Airbus said that they would try to block the deal? To they have a case?
Officialy they said that it's a great opportuny to boost the Airbus
status changes. They didn't make an opposition form to European
Antitrust Commision. But this comission make an investigation on this
agreement between MDD and Boeing. I think there is no chance that this
commission stop because MDD have a negligent role on European Military
and civil aviation.
Dave Starr
......
> I dont see a cargo ramp as being much more complex then a standard
> cargo door. Bigger hinges/etc, but not that much more complex.
> And while there is some wieght penalty, the cargo door is shoved
> up under the tail, which is usually just 'wasted' space anyway.
> Being able to just slide the pallets right out the back and onto
> a truck is much more efficient then slide one out, scissor lift it
> and then slide it onto a truck.
There are some good points in this and the earlier messages in the chain,
but a bit of apples vs oranges has crept in here. The cargo pressure door,
ramp, and petal doors on the C-17 (and the C-5 and C-141 predecessors) are
extremely complex, heavy and maintenance intensive. They are built to
accommodate heavy equipment (loaded trucks, main battle tanks, etc.).
There is no denying that a roll-on/roll-off setup would be more efficient
for a carrier like FedEx, but the current military cargo ramp system would
be a terrible match for the job. It's illuminating to note that unofficial
Air Mobility Command (formerly MAC) rules of thumb count a KC-10
(high-mount, side cargo door only) as equal to 1.5 to 2 C-5s in efficiency
- mainly because the complex systems of the C-5 (especially the front and
rear cargo doors and kneeling landing gear) break so often that the KC-10
delivers more tonnage in a given time frame. (argument invalid if
considering cargo such as main battle tanks).
Lockeed made serious attempts to market civilian versions of the -141 and
-5 with little success. The L-100 civil Hercules has attained some success
with a rear cargo ramp, but also without petal doors.
Ben
>>> The MD-17 (commercial C-17) may lift greater weights, and has that
>>> nice rear cargo door for really big stuff. I don't see where either
>>> is of great value to a package carrier like FedEx or UPS, though.
>>
>equipment bay be expensive, it is nothing compared to what it costs in an
>aircraft, or the cost of flying it a few million miles a year.(not to
>mention that a mechanical problem with renders an aircraft that costs 100
>million dollars or so useless until it is fixed!
Airbus proposed A300 600ST "BELUGA" to FEDEX and UPS but they refused
due to the cost and the poor return on investment.
I think HEAVYLIFT which is the best consumer for this type of aircraft
prefers to used AN 114.
CARGOLUX which used 747 400F said that they have lot of difficulties
to rentabilised this aircraft.
So the potentiel market for MD 17 seems to be unexistant for
traditional uses.
Karl Swartz
>Airbus proposed A300 600ST "BELUGA" to FEDEX and UPS but they refused
>due to the cost and the poor return on investment.
Weird. Those would be two of the *last* cargo carriers who I would
think of as potential "Beluga" operators, since they rarely if ever
deal with very large or bulky cargo. (Do either of them even handle
such work on a contract basis? I'm aware of UPS having chartered a
C-130, temporarily painted in UPS colors, to fly Keiko aka Willy the
Whale from Mexico City to Oregon, but that clearly was a promotional
stunt, albeit a very generous and beneficial one.)
>I think HEAVYLIFT which is the best consumer for this type of aircraft
>prefers to used AN 114.
I presume you mean the An-124. This has become somewhat popular for
specialized work because it can carry loads that no other plane can.
HeavyLift has a subsidiary which operates six of them with Volga-Dnepr
of Russia. HeavyLift has two Il-76TDs of its own, and also uses short-
term leases of additional An-124s, Il-76s, and C-130s when necessary.
The MGTOW of the C-17 is bracketed by the An-124 and Il-76, which are
probably cheaper with the Russians and Ukranians being eager to earn
hard currencies. Given that, I suspect an MD-17 might be a hard sell
at HeavyLift.
A competitor could conceivably serve a significant fraction of that
market with the MD-17, and perhaps gain a market advantage from higher
reliability -- the Russian planes, mainly the engines, are notoriously
unreliable.
>CARGOLUX which used 747 400F said that they have lot of difficulties
>to rentabilised this aircraft.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Huh?
I read an article about the 747-400F a while back. It's main benefit
compared to the 747-200F is greater range with a full cargo load. For
many interesting cargo routes, however, it's range isn't enough more
to eliminate fuel stops. I think SFO-NRT was an example. Both planes
need a fuel stop, usually at ANC. The fact that the -400F could fly a
greater percentage of the flight before stopping is neither interesting
nor useful. With a plentiful supply of inexpensive -200s which can be
converted to freighters, the -400F was claimed to be a fairly difficult
sell.
I wish I could remember where I saw that article so I could cite more
concrete facts from it. The analysis appeared to be quite good.
>So the potentiel market for MD 17 seems to be unexistant for
>traditional uses.
Maybe, and I agree with that FedEx and UPS are unlikely candidates,
but the remaining arguments aren't overly convincing.
mlyon
Karl Swartz wrote:
>
> I read an article about the 747-400F a while back. It's main benefit
> compared to the 747-200F is greater range with a full cargo load.
On almost every route, the 400F outperforms the 200F.
> For
> many interesting cargo routes, however, it's range isn't enough more
> to eliminate fuel stops. I think SFO-NRT was an example. Both planes
> need a fuel stop, usually at ANC. The fact that the -400F could fly a
> greater percentage of the flight before stopping is neither interesting
> nor useful.
Are you considering only transpac routes? There are many others in the
world where the extra range of the 400F pays off very well.
> With a plentiful supply of inexpensive -200s which can be
> converted to freighters, the -400F was claimed to be a fairly difficult
> sell.
It's value is becoming more widely known as information dribbles out
from the three main operators (CV, SQ, Asiana).
Brgds,
s/Mark
J. Heilig
McDD was showing a model of the "MD-17" in civilian garb at Farnborough
this year, and I know from talking to people at Douglas (sorry...Boeing
Company/McDonnell Douglas Division, Long Beach), that both FedEx and UPS
were informally involved in the original design of the C-17. Sure they
may be expensive, but both of those organizations measure man hours and
movements to the nth degree, and any saving of time or movement would
save them tremendous amounts of money over the long term.
Jennings Heilig
Ben
k...@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote:
>>CARGOLUX which used 747 400F said that they have lot of difficulties
>>to rentabilised this aircraft.
>I read an article about the 747-400F a while back. It's main benefit
>compared to the 747-200F is greater range with a full cargo load. For
>many interesting cargo routes, however, it's range isn't enough more
>to eliminate fuel stops. I think SFO-NRT was an example. Both planes
>need a fuel stop, usually at ANC. The fact that the -400F could fly a
>greater percentage of the flight before stopping is neither interesting
>nor useful. With a plentiful supply of inexpensive -200s which can be
>converted to freighters, the -400F was claimed to be a fairly difficult
>sell.
It's not a range problem. But the initial cost is higher than a
modification of a 747 200.
CARGOLUX has to fly more and his market has small potential.
Airbus makes a study under the potential of new aircraft vs second
hand one. The conclusion is that for high capacity (B747), the return
on investment is better wirh a second hand one.
Karl Swartz
>> For many interesting cargo routes, however, it's range isn't enough more
>> to eliminate fuel stops. I think SFO-NRT was an example. Both planes
>> need a fuel stop, usually at ANC. The fact that the -400F could fly a
>> greater percentage of the flight before stopping is neither interesting
>> nor useful.
>Are you considering only transpac routes? There are many others in the
>world where the extra range of the 400F pays off very well.
I said many routes, as that's what was said in the article I referred
to (probably in AW&ST, though I still haven't found it).
AW&ST lists cargo capacity of the 747-200F as 245,300 lbs, with the
-400F only a little (9.4%) more at 268,300 lbs. Their range numbers
do not appear to be credible (4,080 miles for the -200F, 3,165 miles
for the -400F) but that may be comparing max range for the -200F to
full load range for the -400F.
Here's what Boeing has to say about the 747-400F on www.boeing.com:
Weights and Ranges (carrying 124 tons of payload)
Max TO weight Range
800,000 lbs 3,200 nm
833,000 lbs 3,760 nm
850,000 lbs 4,050 nm
875,000 lbs 4,450 nm
Compared to the -200F, Boeing says
The -400 Freighter can carry 124 tons (113,000 kg) of cargo more than
4,400 nautical miles. An additional 26 tons of payload or 1,200 nautical
mile range is possible compared to Boeing's 747-200 Freighter.
If I'm reading that correctly, it sounds like a -200F can carry 98
tons 4,450 nm, or 124 tons 3,250 nm.
SFO-NRT is 4,452 nm, beyond the range of either model. Only by a very
small margin for the highest MGTOW -400F, but ditching off the Golden
Gate or in Tokyo Bay doesn't win any points. :-) Since both must make
a fuel stop, the -400F's range advantage is of no consequence. It can
carry a higher payload, but the segment distance is such that the -200F
payload is not substantially reduced by the need for a heavy fuel load.
Across the Atlantic, JFK-AMS is 3,166 nm. That's within the max load
range of the -200F, so again, the -400F's additional range doesn't buy
anything.
In each example, the -400F's advantages are a payload increase of less
than 10%, fuel burn reduction of 10% to 16% (according to Boeing), and
elimination of the flight engineer. Given the huge disparity in
capital costs of a new 747-400F versus a 747-200, possibly converted
from a full depreciated 747-200B, these advantages are not terribly
compelling.
There was one group of routes where the article claimed the -400F does
have a measureable advantage. I don't recall where that was, but a
good guess would be routes like SIN-LAX. At 7,620 nm non-stop, a
-200F needs two stops. (It could do the job with one close to the
midpoint, but there aren't any conveniently located airports and that
would require a substantial payload penalty.) In contrast, a high
MGTOW -400F can in theory make the trip with only one stop without a
dramatic payload penalty. (I'm not sure what would be a reasonable
place to stop, though.)
H Andrew Chuang
In article <airliner...@ohare.Chicago.COM>,
Karl Swartz <k...@ohare.Chicago.COM> wrote:
>There was one group of routes where the article claimed the -400F does
>have a measureable advantage. I don't recall where that was, but a
>good guess would be routes like SIN-LAX. At 7,620 nm non-stop, a
>-200F needs two stops. (It could do the job with one close to the
>midpoint, but there aren't any conveniently located airports and that
>would require a substantial payload penalty.) In contrast, a high
>MGTOW -400F can in theory make the trip with only one stop without a
>dramatic payload penalty. (I'm not sure what would be a reasonable
>place to stop, though.)
My understanding is all the current B747-400F operators went for the
extra payload instead of the extra range. For example, Singapore
Airlines' B747-400F service between SIN-LAX (as well as to other US
cities) does make two stops (TPE/SEL and ANC). IIRC, SQ has
fifth-freedom rights between TPE/SEL and the US only on selected
flights.
cs...@mail.idt.net
In article <airliner...@ohare.Chicago.COM>, k...@ohare.Chicago.COM
says...
1st both the 200 and 400F have the range ability to get to NRT
directly from SFO but the ACL (Aircraft Cargo Load) would have to be
reduced in order to add the additional fuel
.
In the example using 4452nm SFO/NRT :
The 747-200F would have to reduce payload to approx 95 tons inoder to
take on the additional fuel to make the safe trip to NRT
The 747-400F would have to reduce payload to approx 108 tons inorder
to take on the additional fuel needed to make the direct flight to NRT
But when you talk about MGTOW there are other conditions that come
into play. MLW ( Maximum Allowable Landing Weight) OEW (Operating
Empty Weight) ZFW (Zero Fuel Weight) The OEW becomes important
especially when dealing with passenger conversions to a freighter A/C.
Because some items can not be removed (ex Passenger Windows)
the OEW is higher than even the manufacturered 747-200F. An increased
OEW has a direct impact on ACL in many cases reducing the optimum
cargo load weight to 95,000-100,000kg for carriage at 3200nm.
Weather conditions as you know also plays an important role in
reducing ACL.
Aircrafts flying into ANC during the winter months many times have to
reduce ACL to stay within Field Limits (MLW) (MTOW)
Ironically the cargo mix today, (with the exception of Winter Months)
has aircraft volume out before weight out. Meaning that the internal
cubic capcity is full yet the weight capcity has not been reached.
Therefore the increased Volume cpacity of 1 M/d POS and 2 Ld-3
positions must also be considered when comparing the 400F to the older
200F.
Note 747-200F is no longer manufacutured so only conversions of
passenger a/c and purchaces of used a/c remain however for new
aircraft the 400F is the best long range capcity aircraft arounf in my
humble opinion.
Robert Caton
President
CSTA
Cargo Shipping Transportation Analysts
cs...@mail.idt.net
Filip De Vos
Karl Swartz (k...@ohare.Chicago.COM) wrote:
: In each example, the -400F's advantages are a payload increase of less
: than 10%, fuel burn reduction of 10% to 16% (according to Boeing), and
: elimination of the flight engineer. Given the huge disparity in
: capital costs of a new 747-400F versus a 747-200, possibly converted
: from a full depreciated 747-200B, these advantages are not terribly
: compelling.
The latter will not have a nose-door: so will not be able to load 20ft
containers. Loading/unloading will take longer too. Whether that is enough
to justify a $150m or thereabouts pricetag ....
--
Filip De Vos Better, Faster, Cheaper means *NO SHUTTLE*
FilipP...@rug.ac.be -Cathy Mancus-
Don Stokes
In article <airliners...@ohare.chicago.com>,
Filip De Vos <FilipP...@rug.ac.be> wrote:
>Karl Swartz (k...@ohare.Chicago.COM) wrote:
>: elimination of the flight engineer. Given the huge disparity in
>: capital costs of a new 747-400F versus a 747-200, possibly converted
>: from a full depreciated 747-200B, these advantages are not terribly
>: compelling.
>
>The latter will not have a nose-door: so will not be able to load 20ft
>containers. Loading/unloading will take longer too. Whether that is enough
Why not? I thought the whole point of the 747's high cockpit was that
the planes could be converted to freighters, complete with nose door,
when they were obsoleted by the SST.
I wouldn't have thought adding the nose door would have required
significant changes beyond the door itself and the structure immediately
surrounding the hinge mechanism. It's not as if it's a major
load-bearing part of the aircraft.
--
Don Stokes, Network Manager, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.
d...@vuw.ac.nz(work) d...@zl2tnm.gen.nz(home) +64 4 495-5052 Fax+64 4 471-5386
Ben
Bernard Ziegler, ex technic manager is accused in the case of A320
Mont Saint Odile Crash in 92.
Filip De Vos
Don Stokes (d...@rata.vuw.ac.nz) wrote:
: In article <airliners...@ohare.chicago.com>,
: Filip De Vos <FilipP...@rug.ac.be> wrote:
: >The latter will not have a nose-door: so will not be able to load 20ft
: >containers. Loading/unloading will take longer too. Whether that is enough
: Why not? I thought the whole point of the 747's high cockpit was that
: the planes could be converted to freighters, complete with nose door,
: when they were obsoleted by the SST.
I think this mainly played in Boeing's calculations about building new
747s, not neccesarily about converting allready-built aircraft. So when
the Jumbo was obsoleted by SSTs, the 747 could continue to be built as a
freighter. That way, Boeing's investment was hedged against the
(possible) success of a SST.
: I wouldn't have thought adding the nose door would have required
: significant changes beyond the door itself and the structure immediately
: surrounding the hinge mechanism. It's not as if it's a major
: load-bearing part of the aircraft.
Well, apparently it is. All 747 freight conversions I am aware of, only
add a rear side cargo door, in the SL/Combi fashion.
The 747-200 Convertible, however, was built with both the nose-opening
door of the 747 Freighter and the rear door in addition to all passenger
doors and windows. The Dutch carrier Martinair bought two.
Of course, no 'conversion' is neccesary to use these planes for cargo
transport. Removal of the interior is sufficient, and quite routine.
air...@flash.net
FilipP...@rug.ac.be (Filip De Vos) wrote:
>: Why not? I thought the whole point of the 747's high cockpit was that
>: the planes could be converted to freighters, complete with nose door,
>: when they were obsoleted by the SST.
The 747 was designed as a freighter from day one, as this was one of
Pan Am's requirements (a dual mission aircraft). The high cockpit
design dates back to the competition for the USAF global transport
(Lockheed won with the C5-A), and that predated the SSC if I'm not
mistaken. One of the requirements of the USAF freighter design was
the ability to drive military transports on and off under their own
power, hence a tail or nose opening would be essential for anything
larger than a Jeep. The high cockpit on a freighter actually dates
back to British AirFerries' "Carvair", which was a prop aircraft
modified to have the cockpit above the cargo deck, and clamshell doors
on the nose...
Some of the printed accounts I've seen on the 747 development point to
safety issues of having containers breaking loose during a rejected
takeoff. The inertial energy of the containers could result in the
cockpit being crushed... Why this wasn't an issue for the DC10 or
other main deck freighters is beyond me!
Eric
J Berry
k...@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote:
>>Airbus proposed A300 600ST "BELUGA" to FEDEX and UPS but they refused
>>due to the cost and the poor return on investment.
UPS prefers used (cheap) equip, anyway
Bought 757/767s new, but the vast
majority of the fleet is very used
>Weird. Those would be two of the *last* cargo carriers who I would
>think of as potential "Beluga" operators, since they rarely if ever
>deal with very large or bulky cargo. (Do either of them even handle
>such work on a contract basis?
UPS does, it's nascent now but expected to grow. UPS is trying to
finesse ground movement of "AIR" service pkgs. to free up space for
"untapped" revenue sources (air cargo). Thus, your Next Day Air pkg
has a decent chance of never seeing the inside of an airplane!
(Fedex moving in this direction also)
I know its off-topic, but UPS is rolling out PASSENGER service this yr
They have ordered roll-in seating (decked out nicely) to utilize their
planes for weekend leisure travel. One problem that I would have a
difficult time overcoming: NO WINDOWS, of course.
>>CARGOLUX which used 747 400F said that they have lot of difficulties
>>to rentabilised this aircraft.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
?? I think everyone has difficulty rentabilising, eh?
J Berry
Michael Butler
air...@flash.net wrote:
> The high cockpit on a freighter actually dates
> back to British AirFerries' "Carvair", which was a prop aircraft
> modified to have the cockpit above the cargo deck, and clamshell doors
> on the nose...
>
> Eric
Actually Eric the high cockpit goes even further back to the Bristol
Freighter. I remember these being used in Wellington on a quick turn
around inter-island service. Palletised cargo was loaded through the
nose and unloaded through the tail door - or was it the other way
around?
Mike Butler
Wellington NZ
AIRJET CORP
> >>Airbus proposed A300 600ST "BELUGA" to FEDEX and UPS but they refused
> >>due to the cost and the poor return on investment.
>
> UPS prefers used (cheap) equip, anyway
> Bought 757/767s new, but the vast
> majority of the fleet is very used
The Airbus Beluga wud not fit into the FedEx global strategy. They got
rid of all the 747's which Fred Smith did not like. FedEx is primarily a
small package carrier by far. While they do have some an occasional need
for something large as the Beluga, there is not enough traffic to make
it worthwhile and does not fit into their fleet plan made up primarily
of 727 type and DC-10 and MD-11s. The Tiger merger presented a real
challenge of fleet intergration primarily the DC-8's and 747's.
Don Stokes
In article <32fe7206...@news.concentric.net>,
Michael Butler <mbu...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>Actually Eric the high cockpit goes even further back to the Bristol
>Freighter. I remember these being used in Wellington on a quick turn
>around inter-island service. Palletised cargo was loaded through the
>nose and unloaded through the tail door - or was it the other way
>around?
Not on a Bristol -- they just have the nose doors (and a passenger door
near the tail). Maybe you're thinking of the Argosy, which was used for
inter-island freight service by Safe Air until a few years ago, up until
they gave up on air freight and stuck to maintenance services. (Safe Air
flew Bristols too, but phased them out quite a long time ago. There's
one preserved at a Nelson museum.)
Jonathan N. Deitch
In article <airliners...@ohare.chicago.com>,
1j...@worldnet.att.com (J Berry) writes:
> I know its off-topic, but UPS is rolling out PASSENGER service this yr
> They have ordered roll-in seating (decked out nicely) to utilize their
> planes for weekend leisure travel. One problem that I would have a
> difficult time overcoming: NO WINDOWS, of course.
Actually, with UPS being based here in Atlanta, there was a fair bit of
press concerning this. They do have roll-in seating (it's essentially a
cargo pallet for people) and they plan to uncover the windows on the
planes. This would mean, I guess, that they are only using planes that
HAD windows to begin with ...
And as you mentioned, the things are supposed to be REALLY nice to travel on !
- Jonathan
Roddenberry, Asimov, Henson, Dr. Seuss, Mel Blanc, Friz Freleng ... Sigh ...
Randy Treadway
1j...@worldnet.att.com (J Berry) wrote:
> UPS is rolling out PASSENGER service this yr
>They have ordered roll-in seating (decked out nicely) to utilize their
>planes for weekend leisure travel. One problem that I would have a
>difficult time overcoming: NO WINDOWS, of course.
>
Those of us who have flown in military C-130's, C-141s,
C-5s, etc will have no problem with this.
i.e.- the idea flying "Space-A" was to get where you
want to go (or fairly close) cheap, or actually 'free'
for all intents and purposes.
We were willing to do without windows, make do
with a chicken or sandwich box lunch and sit
in web seats with earplugs stuck in our ears
for long periods of time (like San Fran to
Honolulu on a C-130 !, or Tokyo to Seattle
on a C-141).
So, I will definitely be interested in the UPS weekend
passenger offerings if they are cheap, they go where
I want to go, and if seats are indeed available.
Will I need to bring my own earplugs?
Randy Treadway
Bobby G. maynard
Randy Treadway wrote:
>
> 1j...@worldnet.att.com (J Berry) wrote:
> > UPS is rolling out PASSENGER service this yr
> >They have ordered roll-in seating (decked out nicely) to utilize their
> >planes for weekend leisure travel. One problem that I would have a
> >difficult time overcoming: NO WINDOWS, of course.
Story In Local Paper (Louisville CJ) Said that the windows would be
uncovered for the charter flights.
BTW, someone posted that they would be using all their planes for this
service. Not so just the 727s which they do not use on the weekends.
bmaynard
Louisville, KY
Joe J. Budion, IV
>BTW, someone posted that they would be using all their planes for this
>service. Not so just the 727s which they do not use on the weekends.
They are only using 5 B-727's to start out with.
Joe
"FedEx Wizard"
Martin Fiddler
In article <airliners...@ohare.Chicago.COM>,
mba...@club-internet.fr says...
>
>Bernard Ziegler, ex technic manager is accused in the case of A320
>Mont Saint Odile Crash in 92.
it might be useful if you told us what he is accused of - could be anything
from knowingly negligent design, of covering up or manipulating evidence,
to failing to smile properly when interviewd afterwards on TV!
Martin
--
Martin
m.fi...@staffs.ac.uk
James Buongiovanni
1j...@worldnet.att.com (J Berry) wrote:
> UPS is rolling out PASSENGER service this yr
>They have ordered roll-in seating (decked out nicely) to utilize their
>planes for weekend leisure travel. One problem that I would have a
>difficult time overcoming: NO WINDOWS, of course.
I had heard that the FAA wasn't going to let the pax service start on
727's until they solved the problem with the new engines flaming out.
Apparently Rolls-Royce is in the dark as to how to remedy the problem.
Awhile back all three engines flamed out at the top of decent, they got
two lit at about 2000 ft agl. Read about it on the NTSB's web site.
Regards,
Christopher Schul
I believe UPS intends to start pax service with B727 aircraft. Most of
their -100 series aircraft are re-engined with RR Tay 651 engines. Cockpits
have been standardized, using a Collins EFIS system. They are former
passenger aircraft and no doubt will have window plugs traded in for
the real thing! Although UPS is based in ATL, their airline ops are of course
based at SDF.
Chris Schul
SAT
David Smith
Michael Butler <mbu...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in article
<32fe7206...@news.concentric.net>...
> air...@flash.net wrote:
>
> > The high cockpit on a freighter actually dates
> > back to British AirFerries' "Carvair", which was a prop aircraft
> > modified to have the cockpit above the cargo deck, and clamshell doors
> > on the nose...
> Actually Eric the high cockpit goes even further back to the Bristol
> Freighter. I remember these being used in Wellington on a quick turn
> around inter-island service. Palletised cargo was loaded through the
> nose and unloaded through the tail door - or was it the other way
> around?
When was the Bristol Freighter introduced? I don't suppose it antedated
the
Me 323 Gigant of WWII which had clamshell nose doors and a cockpit above
the cargo hold? Or the Fairchild C-82 Packet of the late 1940s?
David Smith
ted...@aol.com
Northwest just recently signed a marketing agreement with Garuda for code
share in that part of the world. Should make things interesting in
regards to NW getting the over KIX route to JKT
gra...@ibm.net
"David Smith" <d...@hplms2.hpl.hp.com> writes:
>When was the Bristol Freighter introduced? I don't suppose it
>antedated the Me 323 Gigant of WWII which had clamshell nose
>doors and a cockpit above the cargo hold? Or the Fairchild C-82
>Packet of the late 1940s?
No, it doesn't antedate the Me323 but it's about contemporary
with the C-82 - which actually didn't have nose doors. It
was loaded from the rear, which was the reason for the twin
booms.
The earlier (than the C-82) Curtiss C-76 Caravan DID have a
nose door with flight deck over but I think it was later than
the 323. Almost certainly the glider version of the Gigant
was earlier than the Caravan but I don't know any dates. It
was used operationally in 1942 across the Mediterranean.
**************************
Graeme Cant
**************************
Brian Maddison
In article <airliners...@ohare.Chicago.COM>
"David Smith" <d...@hplms2.hpl.hp.com> writes:
>When was the Bristol Freighter introduced? I don't suppose it antedated
>the >Me 323 Gigant of WWII which had clamshell nose doors and a cockpit
>above the cargo hold? Or the Fairchild C-82 Packet of the late 1940s?
The Bristol 170 first flew in December 1945, the XC-82 in September 1944.
Not strictly to do with airliners, but C-82s were loaded from the rear
and did not have nose doors (correct me if I'm wrong). The location of
the flight deck was simply to give more cargo space in the fuselage pod.
When the C-119 was developed its cockpit returned to a more conventional
position.
Brian M
--
Brian Maddison
ITSD Support E209 Phone:387-5485 FAX:387-6086
Jean-Francois Mezei
If UA wants to capture the Japan<->Asia market, why then doesn't UA
create a Japanese subsidiary who would then operate under Japanese rules
and agreements ?
I can understand that US airlines such as US would love to be able to
capture Japan<->Asia traffic perhaps more than they want the US<->Asia
traffic. (higher yields etc).
Lets look as Asia as a "continent", and the USA/Canada as a continent.
If Japan allows UA to carry Japanese from Japan to Indonesia for
instance, will the USA allow ANA or JAL to compete in the LAX-JFK route?
It is one thing to allow a foreign airline to hub at your airport to
help transfer its own passengers to onwards flights, but it is another
to allow a foreign airline to play in your own playing field.
George Brien
BMAD...@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca (Brian Maddison) wrote:
>In article <airliners...@ohare.Chicago.COM>
>"David Smith" <d...@hplms2.hpl.hp.com> writes:
>>When was the Bristol Freighter introduced? I don't suppose it antedated
>>the >Me 323 Gigant of WWII which had clamshell nose doors and a cockpit
>>above the cargo hold? Or the Fairchild C-82 Packet of the late 1940s?
>The Bristol 170 first flew in December 1945, the XC-82 in September 1944.
snip
I first "met' the Bristol Freighter when it was flying in Maritime
Central Airways= they were flying charter work for the DEW line
and altho it was a freighter, a few web seats were in the back when I
flew out of N Labrador to Goose Bay. Altho it was late Aug. I still
remember the snow and cold air blowing in around the front doors.
Later I saw them often with Air Canada- where the following story
came from >
LGA twr. AC flt 582 please identify you aircraft type
AC 582 acft type Bristol Freighter
Lga twr. did you build it yourself??
RC CSTA
Why should UA have to create a Japanese subsidary ?
Bi-lateral and Multi-lateral agreements can be negotiated and it's up
those doing the negotiating to obtain equal rights of passage on behalf of
their home carriers.
The example you've used related to Japan- Indonesia compared to LAX-JFK is
mixing apples with oranges.Japan -Indonesia would fall under 5th freedom
negoatiation while LAX/JFK is presently considered cabotage. An equal
example
of cabotage would be NRT/OSA. However code sharing has been utilized to
circumvent cabotage.
Just my 2 cents thrown into the mix.
Robert F. Caton
President
CSTA Cargo Shipping Transportation Analysts
Fax 516-862-1443
Bus E-mail cs...@mail.idt.net
Per E-mail RCC...@aol.com
" The Successful Growth of the Air Industry Tomorrow will Come from the
Transportation Visionaries of Today"
H Andrew Chuang
In article <330cecc6...@news.concentric.net>,
Jean-Francois Mezei <"[nospam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca> wrote:
>If UA wants to capture the Japan<->Asia market, why then doesn't UA
>create a Japanese subsidiary who would then operate under Japanese rules
>and agreements ?
Because most countries do not allow their own airlines to be controlled
by foreigners.
>
>I can understand that US airlines such as US would love to be able to
>capture Japan<->Asia traffic perhaps more than they want the US<->Asia
>traffic. (higher yields etc).
>
>Lets look as Asia as a "continent", and the USA/Canada as a continent.
>If Japan allows UA to carry Japanese from Japan to Indonesia for
>instance, will the USA allow ANA or JAL to compete in the LAX-JFK route?
That's domestic route, or cabotage traffic. Almost all countries do not
allow foreign airlines to carry domestic traffic. Many foreign airlines
have argued that the US should allow such traffic in return for their
fifth-freedom traffic. However, I don't think it will happen any time
soon. Some international airlines do have some fifth-freedom rights
from the US. Just to name some airlines: Varig, VASP, JAL, Malaysia,
Singapore, China Airlines, EVA, Korean, Cathay, Philippine, Air-India,
Biman, Gulf Air, etc.
>It is one thing to allow a foreign airline to hub at your airport to
>help transfer its own passengers to onwards flights, but it is another
>to allow a foreign airline to play in your own playing field.
>
For foreign airlines to tap the US domestic market, the most efficient
way is through investing in US carriers. It will not be a simple task to
establish an efficient subsidiary operation in the US even if the US
allows foreign airlines do to so. The US carriers are in general very
efficient.
J. Heilig
Who can forget the all-stainless steel Bud Aircraft Conestoga? It had
the cockpit mounted above the cargo hold and bulbous nose doors.
Possibly one of the ugliest airplanes ever built. Actually, Flying
Tigers started out life flying them.
Jennings Heilig
Malcolm Weir
Jean-Francois Mezei wrote:
>
> If UA wants to capture the Japan<->Asia market, why then doesn't UA
> create a Japanese subsidiary who would then operate under Japanese rules
> and agreements ?
Because Rule #1 says that "Foreign Airlines" means "Airlines owned by
foreign nationals". In this case, a Japanese subsiduary of UAL would
still be foreign.
This rule is pretty much universal, for example in the US the magic
number is a maximum of 25% foreign ownership.
Malc.
Michael Butler
With a first flight in October 1943 it beats the C82 and Bristol 170.
This must make it the first of the powered high cockpit nose door
aircraft.
Mike Butler
Michael Jennings
In article <airliners...@ohare.Chicago.COM>,
>>If UA wants to capture the Japan<->Asia market, why then doesn't UA
>>create a Japanese subsidiary who would then operate under Japanese rules
>>and agreements ?
>
>by foreigners.
>
difficult, even if you are Japanese. (Until very recently, the word
was 'impossible', not 'very difficult'. That's right. There was a law
against the creation of any new airline). And because if foreigners control
an airline, it is unlikely to be recognised as 'Japanese' by many of the
other countries you try it to. Aviation worldwide is a mass as protectionism.
Get used to it.
Michael.
--
Michael Jennings
Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics
The University of Cambridge. mj...@damtp.cambridge.ac.uk
"`I need every aluminum can you can find! And duct tape!"
Derek Clarke
Michael Butler <mbu...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>J. Heilig wrote:
>> Who can forget the all-stainless steel Bud Aircraft Conestoga?
>With a first flight in October 1943 it beats the C82 and Bristol 170.
>This must make it the first of the powered high cockpit nose door
>aircraft.
The Messerscmitt 323 (Gigant) flew in 1942 according to
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/gustin_military/ger/ME323GIG.html
And six engines certainly made it powered!