6 ms·

Related cargo airplane factoid (and I would be glad to hear about this and more from others too): One thing I learned through listening to stories about Fedex

Related cargo airplane factoid (and I would be glad to hear about this and more from others too): One thing I learned through listening to stories about Fedex and UPS is that their fleets are (or maybe were at the time of my learning this) surprisingly old. Or that is to say, sometimes it is surprising to learn that these leading freight companies fly planes that are several generations old, like MD-11s, or old 767s. The reason for this is that these operations generally fly planes for just a few hours each night, being focused on overnight delivery, and hub-spoke swapping of packages from and to destinations. And when an asset is in use for only a few hours each day, it is less important how fuel efficient or modern it is. It just has to get the job done in a basic way, and not break that often. A clunker is ok to be relatively inefficient because you only need to use it infrequently (compared to a passenger airplane, which by comparison is in nearly constant use to get as much revenue $ out of it and you want it to be economical in cost for that operation). So these fleets have planes that are 20+ years old and feel little pressure to modernize from that point of view. I remember realizing this fact when I heard that Avalon (Catalina Island) freight / mail is (or was) served by an old DC-3 every day. Doesn't matter how old the plane is if it really only has to operate for 30 minutes each day. I think that one retired though.

XorNot 3y ago
It's also worth noting that airframes in general are usually governed by number of flight hours more then anything else. So if you're not racking them up, then all your wear parts are lasting a lot longer.
- m2fkxy 3y ago
  Depends on their route profile. It is a combination of flight hours and cycles (ie. take-offs + landings). There also are calendar limits to maintenance operations.
- V__ 3y ago
  I thought start/landings meaning pressure cycles were a more important metric?
  - notahacker 3y ago
    Generally an airframe's maintenance requirements will have specified maintenance intervals for both and also in months, with the maintenance check and part replacements being carried out whichever occurs first. (and different parts are exposed to different types of metal stress. A lot of the most expensive life limited parts are fitted to engines) Fuel consumption, one of the biggest cost disadvantages of older aircraft, is more closely related to hours than cycles
m2fkxy 3y ago
20 years is not very old by aviation standards. Also, MD-11s are arguably still very modern birds. It's not like cargo carriers were still operating 707s or 727s.
- zokier 3y ago
  I chuckled on 90s aircraft being described as surprisingly old; heck, some people are apparently still operating 70s 737s commercially: https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/25767-boeing-737-200s-oldies-still-soaring-the-skies https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/25767-boeing-737-200s-old...
  - supernova87a 3y ago
    I remember not too many years ago still flying on a 737-200 (the torpedo engines) in Chile, looking at cabin furnishings that were older than I was, and hoping that we would arrive in one piece (although I know that age has no necessary correlation with safety).
- supernova87a 3y ago
  I read this interesting commentary about MD-11s, not that they're old (which they are) but that they're just poorly designed aircraft and relegated to these cargo use cases. "... MD-11 had a whole range of issues that added up to a poor design. McDD did the development of the MD-11 on the cheap, led by their illustrious leader HS who did everything for minimum cost. It really needed a clean sheet design wing rather than just adapting the DC-10 one (which had never been got right in the first place and had excessive drag). But the money was not provided to do this. Madcap idea was to reduce the size of the horizontal stabiliser (the "tail") compared to the DC-10 (despite the greater size), to reduce its drag. That makes it more difficult to control. To then overcome this a computer called the Longitudinal Stability Augmentation System was devised. We're speaking about 25-30 year old computer technology here. This was meant to enhance the way the tailplane worked. Another was that MD-11 pilots were to receive "additional training", that euphemism for handling something difficult and not intuitive. Various outcomes ensued, particularly on landing. One is the MD-11 got the universal nickname of "The Scud" in the pilot world because "you never know where it's going to land" (remember the MD-11 came into service at the time of the first Gulf War). Hence the "additional training" which concentrates on landing aspects. The second was its propensity to then drag a wing in landings that became unstable. This revealed a further poor (and cheap) piece of wing design, as the wing will tend to break at the attachment, which then leads to the aircraft cartwheeling on touchdown. For a type where only 200 were built, the number which have been destroyed in these cartwheeling accidents (which have never once happened to their Boeing or Airbus rivals) is just unacceptable. Now the MD-11 had other poor aspects. It didn't meet its performance guarantees, which allowed a number who ordered it to walk away from it. The Pratt & Whitney engined version in particular were unreliable. But more than anything else Boeing came up with an aircraft of remarkably similar size which used just two engines, not three, and yet delivered not only equal performance but everything the MD-11 had claimed to do but didn't. Boeing spent the R&D money on the 777, and got their return. The worth of the MD-11 didn't quite fall to scrap value, however, as the three-engined approach made it suitable for those who move high weight a medium distance - the cargo airlines. And so FedEx, UPS, and some others would pay reasonable secondhand prices for them. The original buyers thus sold them off, and bought 777s instead. Yes, there were a range of reasons. But in the background, quietly, the Chief Pilot is telling the Chairman of the Board "that thing is an accident waiting to happen for us". As, I regret to say, the cargo airlines continue to find out. I suspect the airline's insurers had something to say as well. McDD just didn't get their Return on Investment, and the same thing happened with the MD90 and MD95, two more adaptations done on the cheap. Out of cash, they had to be absorbed by Boeing, and their vast assembly plant area in Long Beach is now condos and shopping malls. The most extraordinary part about this is that HS got himself accepted and pushed up to the very top of the Boeing hierarchy, where his extreme cost cutting some years ago did the same again - this time going for a real all-whiz new design, new materials, plus all subcontracted out (to the low bidder of course) rather than use the traditional workforce, etc,etc. Everything different, all at once. Roll on several years from his time there, and we all know what's happened to that new Boeing type, don't we ...... ? As was said 20-30 years ago : "The best aircraft would be - designed by Lockheed, built by Boeing, sales & markeing team from McDonnell Douglas". Notable which of the three skills eventually came out on top."
hurril 3y ago
I understand the argument you're making but I don't see how it makes sense. If fuel is the biggest cost, which it is last time I checked, then fuel efficiency becomes something that affects the financial margins. So it has to be something else. My guess would be insurance. It costs a lot more to insure passenger flights, which means that the tolerance for failures is that much lower. I.e.: it costs a lot more to insure an old piece of junk than a brand new piece of kit.
- raverbashing 3y ago
  Fuel is the biggest cost, but it scales linearly with usage (hence revenue) The second biggest cost is lease, which is significantly smaller the older the plane is (also cargo doesn't fly first class)
  - hurril 3y ago
    Sure, variable costs matter less with less use. I guess the difference in fuel efficiency is not that great, then. A lower insurance (which is my guess/ opinion!) and a lower lease cost has a greater explanation value.
- mattbrewsbytes 3y ago
  A fun comparison could be driving a brand new (has a payment) fuel efficient car (30mpg) 5 miles a day vs. driving an older (paid off) truck/SUV (15mpg) the same distance. Over the course of a year (5d/week * 50 weeks) you will spend ~$150 more on fuel for the truck/SUV (used a mpg calculator at $4/gal). Its roughly 2x the fuel cost for this example, you could find a more efficient car but lets do some more simple math on payments. Brand new vs paid off makes no difference on fuel efficiency. However, the average car payment for new cars in 2023 is $716 (holy crap!), so that payment for 5 years ($43k) is going to far outweigh the $150/year you'd "save" by driving a more fuel efficient vehicle. Five years of the fuel for this 15mpg truck example is still only $750 more than the cars fuel, a little over 1 monthly payment. An older vehicle is going to have higher maintenance/repair costs but not $40k more. I assume larger numbers, but similar ratios for planes doing short daily trips.
bsder 3y ago
> I remember realizing this fact when I heard that Avalon (Catalina Island) freight / mail is (or was) served by an old DC-3 every day. I seem to remember that there was something about the airport that meant that most newer planes couldn't land there.
supernova87a 3y ago
I also wonder if there are any readers from Flexport or Amazon Air services who have interesting takes / stories about these kinds of factors in the operations today.

XorNot 3y ago

It's also worth noting that airframes in general are usually governed by number of flight hours more then anything else. So if you're not racking them up, then all your wear parts are lasting a lot longer.

m2fkxy 3y ago
Depends on their route profile. It is a combination of flight hours and cycles (ie. take-offs + landings). There also are calendar limits to maintenance operations.
V__ 3y ago
I thought start/landings meaning pressure cycles were a more important metric?
- notahacker 3y ago
  Generally an airframe's maintenance requirements will have specified maintenance intervals for both and also in months, with the maintenance check and part replacements being carried out whichever occurs first. (and different parts are exposed to different types of metal stress. A lot of the most expensive life limited parts are fitted to engines) Fuel consumption, one of the biggest cost disadvantages of older aircraft, is more closely related to hours than cycles

m2fkxy 3y ago

20 years is not very old by aviation standards. Also, MD-11s are arguably still very modern birds. It's not like cargo carriers were still operating 707s or 727s.

zokier 3y ago
I chuckled on 90s aircraft being described as surprisingly old; heck, some people are apparently still operating 70s 737s commercially: https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/25767-boeing-737-200s-oldies-still-soaring-the-skies https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/25767-boeing-737-200s-old...
- supernova87a 3y ago
  I remember not too many years ago still flying on a 737-200 (the torpedo engines) in Chile, looking at cabin furnishings that were older than I was, and hoping that we would arrive in one piece (although I know that age has no necessary correlation with safety).
supernova87a 3y ago
I read this interesting commentary about MD-11s, not that they're old (which they are) but that they're just poorly designed aircraft and relegated to these cargo use cases. "... MD-11 had a whole range of issues that added up to a poor design. McDD did the development of the MD-11 on the cheap, led by their illustrious leader HS who did everything for minimum cost. It really needed a clean sheet design wing rather than just adapting the DC-10 one (which had never been got right in the first place and had excessive drag). But the money was not provided to do this. Madcap idea was to reduce the size of the horizontal stabiliser (the "tail") compared to the DC-10 (despite the greater size), to reduce its drag. That makes it more difficult to control. To then overcome this a computer called the Longitudinal Stability Augmentation System was devised. We're speaking about 25-30 year old computer technology here. This was meant to enhance the way the tailplane worked. Another was that MD-11 pilots were to receive "additional training", that euphemism for handling something difficult and not intuitive. Various outcomes ensued, particularly on landing. One is the MD-11 got the universal nickname of "The Scud" in the pilot world because "you never know where it's going to land" (remember the MD-11 came into service at the time of the first Gulf War). Hence the "additional training" which concentrates on landing aspects. The second was its propensity to then drag a wing in landings that became unstable. This revealed a further poor (and cheap) piece of wing design, as the wing will tend to break at the attachment, which then leads to the aircraft cartwheeling on touchdown. For a type where only 200 were built, the number which have been destroyed in these cartwheeling accidents (which have never once happened to their Boeing or Airbus rivals) is just unacceptable. Now the MD-11 had other poor aspects. It didn't meet its performance guarantees, which allowed a number who ordered it to walk away from it. The Pratt & Whitney engined version in particular were unreliable. But more than anything else Boeing came up with an aircraft of remarkably similar size which used just two engines, not three, and yet delivered not only equal performance but everything the MD-11 had claimed to do but didn't. Boeing spent the R&D money on the 777, and got their return. The worth of the MD-11 didn't quite fall to scrap value, however, as the three-engined approach made it suitable for those who move high weight a medium distance - the cargo airlines. And so FedEx, UPS, and some others would pay reasonable secondhand prices for them. The original buyers thus sold them off, and bought 777s instead. Yes, there were a range of reasons. But in the background, quietly, the Chief Pilot is telling the Chairman of the Board "that thing is an accident waiting to happen for us". As, I regret to say, the cargo airlines continue to find out. I suspect the airline's insurers had something to say as well. McDD just didn't get their Return on Investment, and the same thing happened with the MD90 and MD95, two more adaptations done on the cheap. Out of cash, they had to be absorbed by Boeing, and their vast assembly plant area in Long Beach is now condos and shopping malls. The most extraordinary part about this is that HS got himself accepted and pushed up to the very top of the Boeing hierarchy, where his extreme cost cutting some years ago did the same again - this time going for a real all-whiz new design, new materials, plus all subcontracted out (to the low bidder of course) rather than use the traditional workforce, etc,etc. Everything different, all at once. Roll on several years from his time there, and we all know what's happened to that new Boeing type, don't we ...... ? As was said 20-30 years ago : "The best aircraft would be - designed by Lockheed, built by Boeing, sales & markeing team from McDonnell Douglas". Notable which of the three skills eventually came out on top."

hurril 3y ago

I understand the argument you're making but I don't see how it makes sense. If fuel is the biggest cost, which it is last time I checked, then fuel efficiency becomes something that affects the financial margins. So it has to be something else. My guess would be insurance. It costs a lot more to insure passenger flights, which means that the tolerance for failures is that much lower. I.e.: it costs a lot more to insure an old piece of junk than a brand new piece of kit.

raverbashing 3y ago
Fuel is the biggest cost, but it scales linearly with usage (hence revenue) The second biggest cost is lease, which is significantly smaller the older the plane is (also cargo doesn't fly first class)
- hurril 3y ago
  Sure, variable costs matter less with less use. I guess the difference in fuel efficiency is not that great, then. A lower insurance (which is my guess/ opinion!) and a lower lease cost has a greater explanation value.
mattbrewsbytes 3y ago
A fun comparison could be driving a brand new (has a payment) fuel efficient car (30mpg) 5 miles a day vs. driving an older (paid off) truck/SUV (15mpg) the same distance. Over the course of a year (5d/week * 50 weeks) you will spend ~$150 more on fuel for the truck/SUV (used a mpg calculator at $4/gal). Its roughly 2x the fuel cost for this example, you could find a more efficient car but lets do some more simple math on payments. Brand new vs paid off makes no difference on fuel efficiency. However, the average car payment for new cars in 2023 is $716 (holy crap!), so that payment for 5 years ($43k) is going to far outweigh the $150/year you'd "save" by driving a more fuel efficient vehicle. Five years of the fuel for this 15mpg truck example is still only $750 more than the cars fuel, a little over 1 monthly payment. An older vehicle is going to have higher maintenance/repair costs but not $40k more. I assume larger numbers, but similar ratios for planes doing short daily trips.

bsder 3y ago

> I remember realizing this fact when I heard that Avalon (Catalina Island) freight / mail is (or was) served by an old DC-3 every day. I seem to remember that there was something about the airport that meant that most newer planes couldn't land there.

supernova87a 3y ago

I also wonder if there are any readers from Flexport or Amazon Air services who have interesting takes / stories about these kinds of factors in the operations today.