Well, well, well,
Atlas Air signs new freighters. Four of them. I remember saying once that This Airline was the one BCA should be targeting, but alas they never did. Atlas is going to get a Nasty headache with no replacements for the fleet of queens they operate, some nearing 30 years old.
Atlas is in no way unique, there is probably another airline out there looking for a solution that only a 747 will give them but wont commit to anything because of the doomsday talk and announcement that the line is going, or that it doesn't fit any green new deals.
Is there a profitability issue?
Why BCA Can charge what they like with any future orders, the customer here is bent over the table and in fact if I were them I would just offer them a 20 frame package and tell the accounting department to take a hike. Half the problem with this program is all the doomsday talk, with sayings of all sorts of two pot box boats, none of which can do the same job as efficiently or if not as effectively, while ignoring the product your selling and any potential customers that they have in front of them.
And as for Anet, I know an armchair salesman that wants get in touch.
.ps IF you pretend your product is garbage, then it might as well be.
Just saw that post. Is this truly an extension of production, or did UPS hand over their last four slots? And I thought one of the fuselage suppliers auctioned off their facility, leaving not only any extension in question, but also casting doubt over the last few scheduled units for UPS?
ReplyDeleteUPS should have made an announcement if they did, because those frames would be in the current year firing order, at least towards the year end. You probably have a better idea which frames are affected and with so much sketchy news about orders, the question you ask is quite pertinent indeed.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I just don't see why BCA would store parts for 4 frames somewhere in Everett. There would be cost attached to that. Its not like there are no companies who would want the contract, I'm sure Spirit would take up any slack if asked and given a case where there would be some money to be made. Also, who bought off the equipment and facility if it was auctioned off?
There might be a supplier X whom might be tasked to build the parts in Triumph's absence but without any confirmation I'm just as clueless as you are.
The funny thing about the closure announcement is the timing, made roughly 1 year in advance, and knowing what they know about existing fleets. Its curious how they could not have made a business case from that.
I'm still surprised that Cargolux and maybe a few other specialty cargo haulers didn't grab just a few more nose-loaders to ensure they'd have them in their fleet for decades to come. They have some, but those D-checks get more and more expensive as the clock ticks...
ReplyDeleteAlso its not like there are plenty of alternatives floating around. There was some talk of 77W P2F conversions, but that aircraft is not as optimal as a pure freighter 747, designed and built wholly for that purpose. If it was, there would be freight companies buying the supply of cheap parked up 77Ws for conversion, because the conversion offers compelling economics. Except that this is not what is observed.
DeleteAlso I've read somewhere that, that conversion would not offer the same capabilities of either the 747-400F or the 748F, partly because of the nose door, but mostly because of the floorspace and weight restrictions. The latter being a big drawback.
The notion that the T7F will somehow replace the 747 in the freight role is quite a stretch in my mind. Its as if all the advantages it has over the 747 in the pax market somehow magically work against it in the freight market, uncanny as it may sound.
As for these cargo carriers, I don't know what their long term view is.
Lets take Singapore Airlines Cargo for example, all this time their fledgling 747F fleet has had no replacement, even though the 748F has been available. Obviously that fleet will require replacement, but with WHAT? Did BCA offer them a package? I never heard of any news like that, did you? The longer they drag that question as to what will be the replacement, the more likely that BCA will give them an alternative? Or maybe they will 'business model' the 747 out of the fleet requirement like KLM? Why don't they just grow a pair and order the 748F Instead? Its not like they cant afford it. In fact, they should trade in their old ones and get discounts on the new ones.
Whatever their reasons I am not aware that they flew by me just now.