Old B74F aircraft and their operations
 

In the last year or so, there have been many new cargo airlines
proposing to start up using very old B74F aircraft, Ocean Air,
Cargo B, Jett 8, Pronair to mention a few. These aircraft are
notorious fuel guzzlers and maintenance queens. In this age
of Jet A being at or near $100 a barrel, what is the real feasibility
of these old birds making a profit for someone? How can anyone
think they will have a viable business plan with an aircraft that
costs more to operate, carries less payload and may have limited
spares? On another view, what is going to happen to the 6 B742F
that Ocean was buying from Air France?? How much longer can
FO and FE's expect to make a living flying the ole queen of the skies?

You hit the nail on the head,
Unless you can achieve high payload factors on every sector (>70%) and good yield combined with high utilisation (+300hrs) it is virtually impossible to make money. Only way it can be done is to achieve economies of scale by having a number in yourt fleet and combining this with other services with other aircraft it is possible e.g. through using cargo capacity in passenger aircraft. The combined result can be good as you can achieve good overall yield.
As for AF 747 which Ocean is "suppossed" to have acquired. I think you will find they are not belonged to Ocean but to a leasing company in Austria or to a company based in USA

Connie has 100's and 200's in his fleet.(400's to start coming this year) They have been purchased for bottom dollar so there is not a huge monthly lease payment. The flights leaving Hong Kong have been ferried in from the Middle East or the Pacific. Whatever he is doing apparently works well for him.

The very simple answer is that you CANNOT these days start an airline with 744. There are no 744F available for sale or lease and when/if they coming on the market, your start-up airline will be number 17 in a list of interested clients so you would not get it anyway. And unless you a close relative of Royal family ruling some nice sandy country it is very doubtful you have finances to order a brand new aircraft (means bring quite some money upfront!) and then wait wait wait for your production slot.

Costs more to operate? Yes but you have no choise. Carries more payload? Not really, a proper 747-200F takes as much as 747-400BCF. Better range-payload? Yes but not necessarely you need it and even you need it, not necessarely you can use it. Burns more fuel? Yes but not so big difference and even at today's jet-a1 rates the lease price difference still almost covers this.

It is more about airline & management than aircraft type. There are companies making money with 742F, with DC10s and even, still, with DC8s and 727s!

Overall you have a choise - either you starting with 742 and then growing, stabilizing and one day taking 744s (and there are success stories), or not starting at all.

MK Airlines dont seem to be doing so badly with their 742's. They are flying huge volumes at near capacity.

Have cargo will fly, some legs pay better and some just to subsidise positioning to next good load.

Cargo southbound out of Europe to Africa pays up to three times better than over same leg northbound, but notwithstanding still makes good economical sense even with a 742.

Even DC-10's and DC-8's can still make money from Europe to Africa if they limit their flights to the equator region and then some cheap return cargo.

IMHO there is much latitude still for good reliable 742's.

Good Points made by all. I am not putting down the B742F per say,
I know it is a great aircraft. I was refering more to the older B741F
and the unique ones with the 70A engines like Pronair is using.
Connie has done well with their older aircraft acquired for minimal
costs compared with the new start ups, and then getting higher
utilization from them. When they step up to B744BCFs, I think they
will do great. Case in Point, Focus Air. They started out with 2 and
then a third reasonably mid age classics, were set for expansion
and growth, but now are struggling to stay alive. Ocean Air
picked up some well maintained ex-LH birds and had a viable plan,
but they too are in dire straights. I know the Europe to Africa market
is still a viable area, but with the backhaul getting cheaper and cheaper,
even this market is not as strong as it was.

Factory freighter -400 payload typically 125Kgs, cost $200+ Million
converted -400 freighter payload 115Kgs $60+
converted -200 freighter payload 107Kgs $25+

Gas guzzlers...
 

747-200F or 747-400F...?
Gas guzzlers...
Three cockpit crewmembers or two...
xxx
I am afraid most of you got it quite wrong...
xxx
Payload, we have leased 747-271C that had a max payload of 110,500 kg.
Same airline offered us a 747-400F for lease with 116,000 payload.
The 747-400 was some $1,000/hour more than a 747-200...
Both airplanes required an intermediate stop on the route Argentina/Europe.
xxx
Fuel - There was a small advantage for the fuel burn on the 400F...
With equal payload, savings would be 4,000 kg (5,100 liters) for sector Argentina/Europe.
The fuel savings do not offset the higher cost of the airplane.
xxx
Crewing...
Because of duty/flight time, crew of 3 is required on both types...
Captain + F/O + F/E crew cost in Argentina is less than 2 captains + 1 F/O.
xxx
So where are the savings...?
xxx
All these new "entrants" in the air cargo market go belly-up after a few month.
The old-timers, Evergreen, Kalitta, Southern Air, Polar are happy with old 747 freighters.
xxx
:)
Happy contrails

Why are Atlas and Kalitta trading their classics for -400 then?

ClevlandHD...
xxx
Trading...?
I think Kalitta will be retiring a few 747-100SFs.
And will take a few 747-400...
The brunt of his fleet will be still 200s for a few years.
I think their fleet is nearly 20 airplanes right now...
I dont call that "trading"...
xxx
:)
Happy contrails

Well thats not quite the same, a FE does not count as augmented crew.
-200/-400 2 Pilots+1FE/2Pilots, up to 14h 3Pilots+2FE/3 Pilots, more than 14h.
Well at least its like this un europe, may be different in argentina.

Correct - is different - Argentina basically uses US/FAA 121 type rules.
Crew of 3 - call it 2 pilots + F/E, or 3 pilots is same limitations.
12 hrs flight time limitations, 16 hrs duty time...
xxx
:)
Happy contrails

P.S. with 2 pilots, the flight time limit is 8 hrs flight time, 12 hrs duty...

Ok, I see, so with 2 Pilots +1 FE no one can really sleep like beeing with 3 pilots.

Anyway, back to topic, one of the reason that quite a few -200 are flying around, is the lack of alternatives.
What else can you get, MD-11 almost impossible, B744 quite difficult, but a bit better now, 767 too small, 777F and 330F coming out in 2009.
So if you start up you can choose btw. 742 and DC-10.

L-38 do you remember if your classic had Rollers? The RB-524DX4s burn less than the GEs and Pratts.

BelArgUsa... I know you used to fly the same -271C as I did. Extended (variable) ZFW. 118.5T (BCV), couple of hundred less for A/ECV.

400F... 129.5T extended (variable), best I've seen.

Couple of hundred kgs up or down depending on OEW (DOW if you prefer).

I don't think Connie will retire any airplane until they reach a hard limit or inspection that is too costly. The 400's will be additions and the classics seem to stay fairly busy. The last couple of 200's came on property just a few months ago.

The 400 is a much more reliable aircraft and running costs are much less. fuel burn on average 2T an hour less, and maintenance much easier with the Central Maintenace Computer. My last airline estimated their 400s had about half the maintenance costs of the classics. Ansd my current airline is replacing it's Classic freighters with 400BCFs.

Shame to see the FEs go. Am losing some good mates.

In full agreement that a 747-400F is more economical than a 747-200F...
Or that a MD-11F is more economical than a DC-10F...
But...
As to say that the older ones are gas guzzlers, sure, they are.
xxx
Is like having a (let's say) an old Cadillac Limousine...
Big V8 6 liters, gas 22 liters for 100 km...
And replacing that junk by a new Caddy Limo... high efficiency engine.
And "only" 19 liters for 100 km...
For me, it is still a guzzler... just a "tat" less...
The old Cadillac was cheap, no bank payments, cheap insurance...
The trunk was large enough for 8 suicases...
The new one makes banks and insurance companies happy.
And in the trunk, they can put... 9 suitcases...
xxx
Obvious, if I organize a new "BeArgUSA Cargo" I might lease a few 200Fs...
That is all that the banks and leasing companies will let me have.
A "small" say, 20 or 30 million $ investment...
I will spend a lot in maintenance, and crewing...
But the banks will say NO to a couple of used 400Fs, and give me 100 million $...
Besides, giving banks $250,000 of interest monthly...
I rather buy spare parts, a spare engine, pay my people a good salary.
Even if it costs over $100,000...
All "within proportion"...
And if not, I go out of business after 6 months, like many "ex-new cargo operators"...
xxx
:)
Happy contrails

Agreed in principle. But the accountant will find the argument in favour of the 744, wheras the pilot in the know can argue the case for the classic. However, we all know that the outfits buying the 744s have serious capital behind them, wheras the classic purchasers are either dreamers who think they can make the operation work on goodwill, prayers and good luck, or are shysters who are in it to make a fast buck and know the operation will go belly up as soon as the first engine change is needed.

A friend of mine is an investment banker who is setting up a freight airline. he likes to point out that pilots are under the illusion that aircraft fly because of the laws of aerodynamics. When in reality, they fly because of the laws of economics.

He's purchasing 744s BTW.