747-8s for Atlas

[Algy]

Here's what's happening. (http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/08/21/Navigation/177/208519/Atlas+Air+and+Polar+Air+Cargo+parent+group+maps+out+plan+to+ order+Boeing+747-8Fs+for+its+fleet.html)

[icemel_aratt]

ooh, does this mean GSS may aquire their much needed 4th a/c i wonder?:confused:

[Dutch74]

Atlas seems more concerned about having the latest coolest gadgets than profit. They did this years ago by buying a couple of -400's when the market screamed for classics... Almost put them out of businness. I think this is nothing but pillow talk. All the ACMI carriers except UPS/FEDEX want to buy -400's as soon as the price on them drop a little more.

[Heilhaavir]

All the ACMI carriers except UPS/FEDEX want to buy -400's as soon as the price on them drop a little more.

Since when are UPS/Fedex ACMI carriers? :ugh:

[zerozero]

They did this years ago by buying a couple of -400's when the market screamed for classics... Almost put them out of businness.

It's true that AAWH filed for and subsequently emerged from bankruptcy but that doesn't mean they were almost out of business.

The bankruptcy was a legal maneuver after the SEC wanted to do an investigation.

SEC: We want to see your records.

AAWH: Um, we seem to have "lost" them.

SEC: We're still going to investigate.

AAWH: Actually, did I say we lost them? I meant we're bankrupt. You wouldn't investigate a poor little bankrupt airline would you?

So: Atlas may have almost been smacked around by the SEC but was never in any danger of going out of business due to the -400 acquisitions.

And now: The customers are screaming for -400s. The backbone of the fleet.

[Whale Rider]

Way to AAWWH! Sticking with Boeing!:ok:

[Dutch74]

It's true that AAWH filed for and subsequently emerged from bankruptcy but that doesn't mean they were almost out of business.

The bankruptcy was a legal maneuver after the SEC wanted to do an investigation.

SEC: We want to see your records.

AAWH: Um, we seem to have "lost" them.

SEC: We're still going to investigate.

AAWH: Actually, did I say we lost them? I meant we're bankrupt. You wouldn't investigate a poor little bankrupt airline would you?

So: Atlas may have almost been smacked around by the SEC but was never in any danger of going out of business due to the -400 acquisitions.

And now: The customers are screaming for -400s. The backbone of the fleet.


Talking to the CEO of the company i work for who use to work at Atlas paints a very different picture. He says current market value of the -400's is around 60-80 million vs. one could buy a classic for 8-20 million. Yes, if cargo weight is the same the -400 is going to fly farther and I'm sure the -8 will do even better, but he says it is like spending 15,000 dollars extra on a new hybrid Car to save only $400 a year in gas. He also says even crewing and MX issues don't justify the cost.

Thanks for the input.

[Zoner]

Let's don't forget that bankruptcy has become another way to reduce debt. I'm just guessing that Atlas reduced debt by $XXX million. So how much did those new airplanes (400s) really cost in the end?

[Whale Rider]

Talking to the CEO of the company i work for who use to work at Atlas paints a very different picture. He says current market value of the -400's is around 60-80 million vs. one could buy a classic for 8-20 million. Yes, if cargo weight is the same the -400 is going to fly farther and I'm sure the -8 will do even better, but he says it is like spending 15,000 dollars extra on a new hybrid Car to save only $400 a year in gas. He also says even crewing and MX issues don't justify the cost.

Thanks for the input.

You can say all you want about acquisition costs on the Classic. But the Classics are like buying an airport car. In the long run you're going to take a hit in the wallet sooner or later. Why not go for the new birds now and be part of the "World" competition. I'm sick of seeing foreign freight carriers cruise around in brand new Boeings. While we [U.S.] freight haulers are pulling up in these old clunkers.:rolleyes:

[Dutch74]

I agree. In the long term your certainly better off with new equipment. But I believe the problem with a lot of the scumbag ACMI outfits is they are trying show profit in the short term, instead of investing in the long term. Some of them have been quite successful doing this. My thinking with Atlas buying the new -8's is the cost to purchase them may cripple them in the short term. I hope I'm wrong. I think they would be better off financially buying 400's. Leave the -8's to the company's that have their own countries standing behind them.

As an operator, Please buy -8's cuz I wanna fly one.

[LASPILOT]

Atlas would most likely lease new equipment. Lease payment on a Converted Freighter (-400) would be half of that on a new -8, but you would recoup all but $ 1000,00 per hour on fuel and MX. But given that payload capability of and -8 being 55,000 lbs greater than a -400BCF your cost per kilo/ hour would be less on new equipment being either 777 or -8. So if their client airlines feel comfortable they can fill up a -8 with 295K of revenue payload, 4 times a week (Asia to the US), an -8 would make a lot of sense, both short and long term.

Question you need to answer is where the price of fuel will be in 2009 and further (when you could actually take delivery providing you would get the production slots). New equipment would make sense at current fuel prices, but if fuel would return to below $1.45 per gallon you can dust of your old 747 classic manuals.

[Whale Rider]

Atlas would most likely lease new equipment. Lease payment on a Converted Freighter (-400) would be half of that on a new -8, but you would recoup all but $ 1000,00 per hour on fuel and MX. But given that payload capability of and -8 being 55,000 lbs greater than a -400BCF your cost per kilo/ hour would be less on new equipment being either 777 or -8. So if their client airlines feel comfortable they can fill up a -8 with 295K of revenue payload, 4 times a week (Asia to the US), an -8 would make a lot of sense, both short and long term.

Question you need to answer is where the price of fuel will be in 2009 and further (when you could actually take delivery providing you would get the production slots). New equipment would make sense at current fuel prices, but if fuel would return to below $1.45 per gallon you can dust of your old 747 classic manuals.

$1.45 per gallon??? You're dreaming. We won't be seeing that again. In fact its just going to get worse. If the company allows itself accept those false hopes. It'll be left in the dust for sure. While the competition cruises on with thier brand new fuel sipping birds. :rolleyes:

[LASPILOT]

Whalerider,

I did not say that fuel is going down to $ 1.45 per gallon but that is about the break even number where the classics are as economical as a -8. By the end of the day you have to take that in consideration when you commit to a 15 year lease....

Hope you guys get the fly them!

LASPILOT

[Buster Hyman]

747-8's .... I hear they're the new Black!

[Dutch74]

Laspilot: I see what your saying but I don't think its that simple. And 295K of cargo? You mean 295K lbs right? I think this is what you mean. 8 hours flight?:ugh:

[LASPILOT]

Actually it is that simple. -8 could carry 295,000 Lbs of revenue payload. To make the math work you would have to fly them 425+ hours per month what would mean 4 round trips from Asia to either West Coast or East Coast with a fuel stop in ANC.

When Atlas first bought the -400's they realized savings in MX, dispatch reliabity, the ability to fly non-stops ( 10 hour stage length) with acceptable payloads and 500 gallons per hour in fuel savings. Back then fuel was cheap and saving 500 gallons did not mean all that much. The -8 will burn 370 gallons less than an -400 but based on a payload that is 55,000 REVENUE pounds higher.

At $2.20 per gallon and a full load the -8 is more expensive to operate per trip bases, but cheaper per unit of weight/hour (either ton, kilo or pound). So if you are a shipper or freight forwarder and you believe you have 295,000 lbs of cargo every time the plane leaves the ground the -8 is a money maker. As I said, that simple.......

[Whale Rider]

Whalerider,

I did not say that fuel is going down to $ 1.45 per gallon but that is about the break even number where the classics are as economical as a -8. By the end of the day you have to take that in consideration when you commit to a 15 year lease....

Hope you guys get the fly them!

LASPILOT

All I'm saying is that; if oil pices have anything to say about it. The Classic-nomics of the 1990's will soon hit a brick-wall. Airlines will be forced to go to new more fuel-efficeint birds. This has already sealed the doom of L1011's, Diesel -8's, -9's and -10's. Its only a matter of time before the fuel Boogie Man gets the Classic's too. Its going to take less than 15 years the way oil makets are going. Its already happening at Polar.:ok:

[Dutch74]

Actually it is that simple. -8 could carry 295,000 Lbs of revenue payload. To make the math work you would have to fly them 425+ hours per month what would mean 4 round trips from Asia to either West Coast or East Coast with a fuel stop in ANC.

When Atlas first bought the -400's they realized savings in MX, dispatch reliabity, the ability to fly non-stops ( 10 hour stage length) with acceptable payloads and 500 gallons per hour in fuel savings. Back then fuel was cheap and saving 500 gallons did not mean all that much. The -8 will burn 370 gallons less than an -400 but based on a payload that is 55,000 REVENUE pounds higher.

At $2.20 per gallon and a full load the -8 is more expensive to operate per trip bases, but cheaper per unit of weight/hour (either ton, kilo or pound). So if you are a shipper or freight forwarder and you believe you have 295,000 lbs of cargo every time the plane leaves the ground the -8 is a money maker. As I said, that simple.......



So where does the cost of buying/leasing, training and MX factor into this?

[LASPILOT]

Dutch74,

You bring up a good point. The training of flight crews will be minimal expense. Common type ratings will only require a transition training; according to Boeing not more that 3 days worth. Maintainance will take quite a bit more, but as often with new airplanes operators can receive training credits if they lease thru Boeing Capital Corp.

I would assume that Altas will lease and the initial expenses will all depend how you structure the deal. Adding a new aircraft to an existing AOC is relatively easy and will not cost much more than adding additional aircraft of the same type.

Spare parts will be the biggest expense since it would be hard to join a parts pool with such a new aircraft with a limited amount of initial operators (Cargolux, Emirates and Nippon)

The capital investment is significant but will be well worth it given the abilities of the aircraft and the significant cost advantages it can offer. I believe if Altas will not order them, someone else will and will become a major competitor in the ACMI business.

With fuel at this level, the traditional approach of cutting doors in 20 year old aircraft is no longer economical. Over the last 18 months the ACMI rates on the classics have dropped so much that it is near impossible to operate them in the black. Most lessors are willing to offer -400BCF's but on a 10 year operating lease. Why commit to an aircraft that will be old news when the -8 start flying?

LASPILOT

[BRISTOLRE]

LASPILOT
The advantage of a B748F be to fly longer sectors with higher payloads and cut out the ANC tech stop/crew change requirement. I dont suppose anyone would fly around at absolute max payload (133,800kgs) as most cargo these days is volumetric.
How much extra "volume" does the B748F offer?

Re Your comments on "Classic" ACMI rates falling, why is this? If the cost of maintaining and crewing them (and insurance costs +++) - all components of ACMI which are increasing, why would rates be falling?
In terms of aircraft supply/availaiblity in the market surely market ACMI rates would be on the up.

[Intruder]

I dont suppose anyone would fly around at absolute max payload (133,800kgs) as most cargo these days is volumetric.

Maybe for you the cargo is volumetric, but that is not generally the case. Maybe the "Express" carriers like FedEx, UPS, and DHL generally bulk out before they gross out. However, I fly 747s at max allowable gross weight and with space still available very often.

[LASPILOT]

BRISTOLRE

The -8 will still need to make a tech stop since it's maximum range (around 4400 nam) with a full payload is not sufficient to make it non-stop from anywere in Asia (with the exception of Japan in the wintertime) to the West Coast.

Volumetric capacity of the -8 is 30312 Cubic Feet what is roughly 4000 CF more that either classic or the -400BCF but I totally agree with INTRUDER; most the time you run out of payload ability rather that volume.

ACMI rates on the classic have dropped mainly because of the price of fuel. Cargo Airlines are no longer able to operate them at profit and unfortunately some ACMI carriers are willing to drop their rates to assure that the keep the business. Last year the going rate for a 747-200F was around $ 4,900.00 per block hour based on a 325 hour contract; These days they are offered at $ 4,300.00 or less. Half your revenue is allocated for MX so it become near impossible to make a penny.

Will be interesting to see what happens to the -400 rates when the 777F and the -8 become available.

LASPILOT

[BRISTOLRE]

LASPILOT, thanks, very valid comments especially regarding the B777. I guessed that the alleged fall in rates was consumer driven. Considering the fuel price (non ACMI component) this is why.

[Dutch74]

^Ditto from me. Very educational. Thanks Laspilot.

[Intruder]

The -8 will still need to make a tech stop since it's maximum range (around 4400 nam) with a full payload is not sufficient to make it non-stop from anywere in Asia (with the exception of Japan in the wintertime) to the West Coast.
Nonstop with a "full" payload may not be as much of a consideration as nonstop with MORE payload. To give an example, a 744 can go ICN-LAX nonstop with about 103-108 tonnes, depending on winds. The Classic can barely make ICN-ANC with the same load.
If the 748 can do ICN-LAX with 115-120 tonnes, that will be a significant improvement over the Classic, and some improvement over the 744.

[Perf Init]

Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Inc. Orders Twelve New Boeing 747-8 Freighter Aircraft; Launch Customer to Deliver Best-In-Class Freighter; Anchors Fleet Strategy That Puts Focus on Customers
PURCHASE, N.Y.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Sept. 12, 2006--

http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20060912005905&newsLang=en

[Whale Rider]

Yep, and send those Classics to the boneyard once and for all!:ok:

[newscaster]

Do Atlas/Polar serve Pakistan? Wikpedia shows them operating to Karachi and Lahore, if so whats the routing and frequency.

[zerozero]

I've only stopped into Karachi as a tech stop from Dhaka to Milan.

And I think we performed some charters for EK to Lahore and Islamabad during the quake relief.

Other than that, we don't do much more.

[Perf Init]

Do Atlas/Polar serve Pakistan? Wikpedia shows them operating to Karachi and Lahore, if so whats the routing and frequency.

Weekly DXB-LHE-TPE-DAC-DXB. Operated by one of the 200s at the moment for EK.