FedEx Cancels Swissair MD11 Deal

[The Guvnor]

FedEx cancels Swissair order
Mon, 26 Nov 01 - 12:02
AirWatch Newswire

American courier service Federal Express has cancelled a deal with Swissair, to buy 15 of the collapsed airline's McDonnell Douglas wide-body jets. According to an article in Flight International magazine today, FedEx has decided to suspend the deal in an effort to 'rein in capacity.' Swissair was rescued from bankruptcy by a last minute Government loan earlier this month and has since restructured around its former subsidiary Crossair.

Reuters reports today that the MD-11 was already an unpopular model of aircraft even before the industry slowdown began a year ago and that since September 11th, demand has been almost totally wiped out. The 15 Swissair jets, which the company had leased from its own unit Flightlease, are to be held by a group of unnamed banks until another buyer can be found.

[411A]

Wish we could afford one (or two), the best (converted) freighter in the business. I believe also that FedEx has canceled (or delayed) their planned conversion of the DC-10's > MD-10.

[The Guvnor]

As I understand it, the MD10 programme has now been cancelled and the DC10-10s bought from United and American will be broken up for spares.

Yep - the MD11 was a pretty awful pax aircraft, but superb as a freighter giving both volume and payload in almost perfect proportion - no problems with 'bulking out before weighing out' there! :D :D :D

[CR2]

I've never been convinced about the MD11F. Its ok as a parcel carrier for the likes of Fedex/UPS, but not much good as a real freighter. No nose-door. Our lot studied and rejected the aircraft about 6-7 years ago.
I get the impression that LH regret theirs (which suits me just fine :D )
Now, lets talk BC17X - there's an aircraft. Max payload 87T, 4.5M (!!!) high cargo door.

[Huck]

C'mon! As I blast out of Inchon Tuesday night, bound for PANC with 170,000 pounds of freight, I will enjoy it less, knowing that Cargorat has told me it's not a "real" freighter!

Many whales are hauling freight without the nose door, by the way.

And the C-17 cost 450 million US in 1990 when the USAF bought them. Just give me six MD-11F's......

[dusk2dawn]

Fedex is probably looking for a better deal with the bankrupcy court ?

[bugg smasher]

Guv, UPS announced acquisition of up to 35 MD-11's, do you know who the airframes are being acquired from?

[CR2]

Hi Huck! I've got nothting against the MD11 as such! I'm just prejudiced against freighters without nose-doors (rear ramp loading is also ok). No limit on length of your freight.

[Huck]

'Twould be nice to have a nose-door....

I read somewhere that Boeing in the sixties expected the world's pax fleet to eventually be supersonic. The 747, then, was designed from the beginning to mainly be a cargo plane - hence the upper deck.

I wish we had some - my father retired off the whale and said it was the best machine he ever flew - in 25,000 hours!

[raitfaiter]

I know freight doesn't really care about cruise speed,but boy its annoying when a lead sled is holding everybody up/down.... :p

[Roc]

UPS's MD-11's (aka SCUDs...once you launch it, you can't predict where it will land!) were bought from, VASP Brazil and JAL, at least the first 13 firm orders. If any further options are exercised, Boeing will find them and convert them.

[wonderbusdriver]

cargorat2:
LH started out with ca. 3 MD11´s for some ex Flying Tigers AC. They were quite good for making money, so the bean counters got more and more, and they now have 14. (If they had gotten some more with CF6´s a year ago there would be even more.)
So, LH isn´t regretting their´s.

I guess they got such a sweet deal on them, they´re actually making good money with the MD11.
BTW it´s the version with MLAW 222.9 t - hauls up to max ~96 t.
To FRA-MNL it takes about as much as a 742 at a much lesser cost.
Once they got used to the loading procedure it´s been working fine.
Of course you can´t really use it for "outsize" cargo as the 747 with a nose door.

Several crews will be trained again soon coming from LH-pax...

Love the cockpit (almost like the wonderbus) - still hate the yoke;-)

[Wino]

Fedex is still doing 96 md10 conversions, but will not be converting the other 50-100 options they had on the program. MD10s are out there and are a steadily growing percentage of the fleet.


Bohica

[ 04 December 2001: Message edited by: Wino ]

[Hunter58]

Gents, as usual you are speculating without even the faintest of ideas...

FedEx still want the airplanes, but not at the agreed price. As you might now, Swissair Group (and therefore FlightLEase, the owner of the aircraft) is under receivership, which means, that any transaction has to be approved by the Administrator. Now this guy is a lawyer, not understanding any commercial issue at all. So when FedEx walked in to renegotiate the price, he refused to listen, which made them cancel the contract. They offer to buy them for the new price, and the Administrator looks f*cked!

And as nobody in the writing world knows anything, they write immediately about how bad the airplane is. If it would have been 747s, you'd read the same **** all over.

And you fall for that!!! Thaaa!

CR2, when is the last time you used that nose door? O.k. you're CV, but all the others probably don't even know that it is there. And... CFs have none, just the side door. :)

[LGW Vulture]

Hold on in there FedEx cos those airplanes are'nt going anywhere in PAX config except for Marana.

[CR2]

Hunter58: everyday!
I've just accepted to fly a 39000KG 40ft pallet from here to HKG. No way in the world
this could be flown on a non-NCD 74F.

[Roadtrip]

The need for a nose door is very, very seldom. In fact it's extra weight and complexity that costs money. For those outsized items that need it, there can be just a few nose-loaders in the fleet.

[Hunter58]

CR2

as I said, you're in CV. But the 'normal' user of the 74s does not even know about the nose door. When you're in a freighter configuration session, it's always the two gents form Cargolux and Lufthansa insisting on the nose door, the rest does not really need it. So you're the absolute exception.

And FedEx definitely does not need a nose door. What they need is pallet positions, and they see no reason why to have an engine more to pay for (including the supporting structure, fuel, maintenance etc.) for just 3 lousy pallet positions more on a 744F. Just not worth the money.

For CV, that's another story!

[hailstone]

hi all

WHY does JL have a 747f with a nosedoor only - no side door ?
make sense to anybody ?

believe it is ja-8132

[CargoOne]

I should agree that nose door is quite usefull. How you will load (using SCD only) nice 9.5 meters long ship sparepart, which is intended to fly today CV7975 KMQ-LUX?

[CR2]

Hi Hailstone. There were a couple of NCD only freighters built. I think El-Al had a couple; Isn't Hydro Air's the ex 4X-AXD, NCD only?

[Zoner]

Evergreen has two NCD 747's. They were originally QC's and we still have the interiors and actually used one as a pax ship for the hadj. The only disadvantage is that the pallets must be built to a shorter height than for a side door. The max payload seems to work out about the same though. I came out of Hong Kong yesterday with 231,000 lbs. which is our average payload for a -200. The charter market is where the NCD really pays for itself. Once I carried a periscope for sub! Had no idea how long those things are. Oil rig machinery, rocket stages, etc, just slide in. ;)

[raitfaiter]

And for us cloggies with two 747C and one F, all with nose doors, theres nothing to beat them when carrying oil pipes from Houston to the gulf, or when the back of the aircraft is full of HKG freight and there are horses to offload in DXB. A NCD seems expensive until you need one, then..... ;)

[Mad Dog 11]

Just wondering.... What is the MD-11F cargo payload compared to a B747-400F?

[CR2]

129T gross for a -400, roughly 95T for an MD11.

[Flip Flop Flyer]

MD11,


The information I have is as follows:

744F MD11F
MTOW 396.900 kg 285.990 kg
MZFW 288.040 kg 209.250 kg
Max payload 112.900 kg 95.490 kg
Volume 762.6 m3 602.4 m3
Range at max pl 4200 nm 3900 nm

Please note that these figures are for general information only. I am confident that a 744/MD11 crew member will have different figures pertaining to their specific airframe/engine combination.

[CR2]

Based on our lightest -400F:
MZFW 288031 - OEW 158796 = 129235Kg available.

[RampTramp]

Hi Rat, do you still have a MTOW restriction when operating at the higher ZFWs on the 744 or was that just a -200 problem???

[freightdoggy dog]

Pitcairn, sorry to disagree mate but the DASA engineered (German) floor on the A300 is a real beaut! however the Skoda conversion out of Filton I have to agree gets trashed too easily. Multi stops are just bread and butter to any loadie worth his salt and I have never found the C of G bands to restrictive on the A300. I just like to explore the edge when bored! . As stated its horses for courses, you always have to make certain compromises cos the bean counters run the show. Anyway I reckon Fedex are just playing fast with the administrators to get a good price. Buy you a beer when your in town next time <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

[CR2]

Hi Ramp Tramp,
Yes as Pitcairn says, Extended ZFW requires a reduction in MTOW. Furthermore, cummulative load limits forward of the wing are decrease as ZFW increases.
EZFW starts at 276692KG. Some examples
ZFW282000/MTOW 382095KG 64639KG max cummulative
288031/MTOW 367863KG 56906KG max cummulative

[RampTramp]

Pitcairn & Rat,

THanks for the answer guys. I realise 'problem' was probably the wrong word to use. I just remember doing the payload/fuel/MTOW 'balancing' act on the old -200 back in nineteenhundredandfrozensolid. Its somehow reassuring to know that some things don't change!

[hailstone]

Pitcairn's post of Dec 14th refers.

I've been asking myself for years now why JAL have a 747F without a sidedoor - only nosedoor.

Believe it is JL-8132

Anybody have a good answer for this ?

[CR2]

There were a few (-100?) series built with only a NCD. Believe El-Al had one, now with Hydro Air I think.

[Hunter58]

CR

I believe there are also a couple of -200CFs with Nose Door only. Absolute dog's as you cannot build pallets over 96'. What's the use then...

[hailstone]

CR2, H58. .exactly my question - what's the use of only an NCD, loosing the 96-118 inch difference ?

[Hunter58]

There is no use, but I believe it was Boeing's original plan with PanAm that got this going. They dreamt about using the 74s for a couple of years until the supersonics would come, and then converting them to freighters (nose-loaders) with dedicated nose-in terminals. And so, almighty Boeing did build a couple of CFs (and I believe even Fs)with nose door only. The real shock for them came when Lufthansa Cargo asked them to design a Side Cargo Door in order to use the volume. Boeing Engineers had believed that the 74s would load sea containers, and those end at 96 inches, so why put a larger door in. Nobody is ever going to use anything else but sea containers!

There you see how much airframe manufacturers really know about airplanes. And it's still like that, I can assure you!

[CR2]

H58's description is pretty much the way I understand it.. .Wasn't Lufthansa's D-ABYO the first SCD 74F?

[Huck]

Just bought a surplussed 20 foot sea-land container to convert into a workshop. TARE weight 4500 pounds! I can only assume the standard 40' containers are 9000# or more. But you can stack them 5 high!

[hailstone]

H58 and CR2. .thanks - makes sense that boeing were looking at the nose-door-dock-option only

[CR2]

Our lot leased that same CityBird aircraft OO-CTB if I remember correctly. I think its the only A300-600R Freighter in existance. The -R designates the tail trim tank (me thinks, but is pretty sure). On a couple of occasions, some valve or other to the trim tank was inop; this led to a rather dramatic decrease in payload.. .The other thing about this aircaft is its cr@p loading restrictions. I used to have a loadsheet somewhere, but remember following. The payload capability depended on the c of g. For example if cg = 25% mac, then max payload would be so much. If it was 26% mac then the payload would be some other number. Talk about making things complicated.. .Give me a 747 any day. The rest just don't cut it.

[RampTramp]

Rat,

It's not the payload that changes with the MAC, it's the cumulatives. We've got the same problem on the B4's but worked around it on the manual sheet by using an 'ideal' trim between 21% & 28% & then taking the most restrictive fore & aft cumulatives. If you are inside the 'ideal' box, then the cumulatives on the loadsheet apply. If you're outside, then it a look-up table. That said, probably 98% of our loadsheets are computer generated so the magic television does the work.

I think it's a case of horses for courses - the A300 works well in our normal environment of small parcels, as a pure cargo aircraft I know it ain't best suited.

Anyway, wadda ya expect, it's French! (Ducks rapidly to avoid incoming frogs!)

[non sched]

Back to the original topic. I saw a list of the fleet for Swiss and it included, I believe, 12 MD-11's. These are obviously the Swiss Air MD-11's. Presumably that means these planes will now stay pax planes at least for the forseeable future. <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

[CR2]

Thanks for the clarification/correction Ramp Tramp. I've never worked with the aircraft, so don't claim to be any kind of expert. . .As for the French bit... :) :) :)

I saw a piece in some mag the other day (Flight? - can't remember) saying that Swiss Airlines or whatever they call themselves these days would keep the MD11 for the next 18 months or so.

[Zones]

I have it on good authority that SR (or whatever they're currently called) are definitely going to get rid of some of their MD11's. Not sure how many though. Seems logical that they might want to keep a few, but not as many as they have in total...

Z