747-8s for Atlas
Thread Starter
"The INTRODUCER"
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
From: London
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
From: Colorado
Sex appeal before profit
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.
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
From: Chicago, IL, USA
Not quite
Originally Posted by Dutch74
They did this years ago by buying a couple of -400's when the market screamed for classics... Almost put them out of businness.
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.
Boeing all the way!
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
From: Colorado
I stand corrected...thanks
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.
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.
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
From: Honolulu
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.
Thanks for the input.
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
From: Colorado
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.
As an operator, Please buy -8's cuz I wanna fly one.
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
From: Las Vegas, USA
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.
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.
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
From: Honolulu
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.
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.
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
From: Las Vegas, USA
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
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
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
From: Las Vegas, USA
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.......
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.......
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
From: Honolulu
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
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
Last edited by Whale Rider; 4th September 2006 at 23:57.
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
From: Colorado
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.......
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?
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
From: Las Vegas, USA
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
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
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 465
Likes: 0
From: Notts & Derbyshire border
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.
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.