Kelowna Flightcraft moving to YYZ

Discuss topics relating to airlines.

Moderators: Sulako, North Shore, ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia

boeingboy
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1254
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 2:57 pm
Location: West coast

Re: Kelowna Flightcraft moving to YYZ

Post by boeingboy »

boeingboy wrote:

As for the 10's - yea - they are old, but they were the only type of widebody freighter certified in Canada. It cost them next to nothing to aquire and certify. Any other type of aircraft will cost millions of dollars and 6 or more months to certify.

boeingboy wrote:

Whats really funny is if you read my post I used the past tense - at the time - the were. Just like ACE did - cargojet almost went broke certifying them. It took forever, and of course - screwing over their customer for them didn't help matters any when they dumped them.......but thats another story.


You can perhaps appreciate why some of us might find this explanation confusing.


ACE was the first ones to certify a widebody freighter in this country - but went broke doing it.........When KFC needed a widebody freighter - the DC-10-30F was the only one certified, thanks to ACE........so it took them (relatively) no time at all to do. Far less time and far less money than to certify anything else.......and the aircraft were being sold on the used market for pennies on the dollar.

Cargojet made the same mistake with the 767's that ACE did with the DC-10's- in thinking it would be simpler (and therefore less expensive and less time consuming) than it actually was. Then they lost their original primary customer for that aircraft and very nearly went bankrupt.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Diadem
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 897
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:16 pm
Location: A sigma left of the top of the bell curve

Re: Kelowna Flightcraft moving to YYZ

Post by Diadem »

boeingboy wrote:
But if the DC-10 is no longer the only widebody freighter certified in Canada, what does it matter that it used to be? It's no longer economical. If they launched this operation with DC-4s that they got for free from Buffalo, that wouldn't make it a good idea.
No - but they already have them - why not make them work, then go spend money one newer models while the old ones still bring in the cash?

What should they do? Spend a fortune certifying 747's or 777's or MD-11's? Not very smart to park everything and then go out and go broke certifying something newer.
Why not focus on being an AMO? Just because they have the aircraft doesn't mean they need to use them. They have 727s too, but they aren't keeping those in service. It's not like they're leasing the aircraft they own to an existing customer; they're creating a whole new enterprise, at the world's most expensive airport, competing against freight companies with far broader route networks, and they're doing it with aircraft that have three engines, need three crew members, and aren't RNAV certified. They're going to need to pay for ground handling at all of their airports, find customers who want their freight to go specifically to Anchorage and Brussels (or else they'd just use UPS or FedEx to get it right to their destinations), and underbid all of their competitors. I don't doubt that if a customer took a quote from KF to Purolator or UPS that they'd get a 5% discount from the quote, simply because those companies have the volume to take a bit of a hit like that in order to retain the customer.
Just because you own a horse cart that's been paid off doesn't mean you should try to compete with trucking companies.
---------- ADS -----------
 
boeingboy
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1254
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 2:57 pm
Location: West coast

Re: Kelowna Flightcraft moving to YYZ

Post by boeingboy »

Because there is a market for this.

I agree - on the surface - simply stopping in Anchorage seems kind of odd, I'm sure there's a reason though.......maybe it's what his customer wants. No freight forwarder would use DHL or Purolator.....are you nuts????? It costs $9 to send a letter to Victoria. That's why they use belly space. Now give them a dedicated plane and you'd be surprised how fast you could fill it.

You do make some valid points, and I wouldn't use the 10's more than 2 or 3 years until you got something better - but the pros outweigh the cons in this case.

I mean come on......Do you really think Barry simply closed his eyes, pointed at a map and said "we're flying here - find someone to fill the plane"??? :roll:
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
YYZSaabGuy
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 805
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 7:32 am
Location: On glideslope.

Re: Kelowna Flightcraft moving to YYZ

Post by YYZSaabGuy »

boeingboy wrote:ACE was the first ones to certify a widebody freighter in this country - but went broke doing it.........When KFC needed a widebody freighter - the DC-10-30F was the only one certified, thanks to ACE........so it took them (relatively) no time at all to do. Far less time and far less money than to certify anything else.......and the aircraft were being sold on the used market for pennies on the dollar.

Cargojet made the same mistake with the 767's that ACE did with the DC-10's- in thinking it would be simpler (and therefore less expensive and less time consuming) than it actually was. Then they lost their original primary customer for that aircraft and very nearly went bankrupt.
Thank you for the explanation: I couldn't figure out why Cargojet would have to re-certify the DC-10 all over again when ACE had already done so. The 767 explanation makes more sense.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
corytrevor
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 77
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: sunnyvail

Re: Kelowna Flightcraft moving to YYZ

Post by corytrevor »

boeingboy wrote:Cargojet made the same mistake with the 767's that ACE did with the DC-10's- in thinking it would be simpler (and therefore less expensive and less time consuming) than it actually was. Then they lost their original primary customer for that aircraft and very nearly went bankrupt
Which customer did they lose? They have always flown UPS freight and still do.
---------- ADS -----------
 
palebird
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 6:17 am

Re: Kelowna Flightcraft moving to YYZ

Post by palebird »

Because there is a market for this.

I agree - on the surface - simply stopping in Anchorage seems kind of odd, I'm sure there's a reason though.......maybe it's what his customer wants. No freight forwarder would use DHL or Purolator.....are you nuts????? It costs $9 to send a letter to Victoria. That's why they use belly space. Now give them a dedicated plane and you'd be surprised how fast you could fill it.

You do make some valid points, and I wouldn't use the 10's more than 2 or 3 years until you got something better - but the pros outweigh the cons in this case.

I mean come on......Do you really think Barry simply closed his eyes, pointed at a map and said "we're flying here - find someone to fill the plane"??? :roll:
Short answer: Yes and no boeingboy there is no market for this.. it is going to be hilarious to watch Barry flounder, not so much for the employee's and I hope that not too many of them get suckered into this venture.
---------- ADS -----------
 
BMLtech
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 4:37 pm

Re: Kelowna Flightcraft moving to YYZ

Post by BMLtech »

Some interesting info on the DC10-30F in the attached file. Yes the aircraft will burn some fuel, but is capable of lifting close to 75 tons on a transatlantic segment, and can go considerably farther with a corresponding payload reduction. I think those numbers far exceed the capability of the 767-200F.
DC-10-30F-Stats-1.pdf
(92.76 KiB) Downloaded 148 times
---------- ADS -----------
 
rudder
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2254
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:10 pm

Re: Kelowna Flightcraft moving to YYZ

Post by rudder »

BMLtech wrote:Some interesting info on the DC10-30F in the attached file. Yes the aircraft will burn some fuel, but is capable of lifting close to 75 tons on a transatlantic segment, and can go considerably farther with a corresponding payload reduction. I think those numbers far exceed the capability of the 767-200F.
DC-10-30F-Stats-1.pdf
What about a B767-300F?
---------- ADS -----------
 
BMLtech
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 4:37 pm

Re: Kelowna Flightcraft moving to YYZ

Post by BMLtech »

What about a B767-300F?[/quote]
http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial ... _prod.page
not even close, but of course a lower direct operating cost, and a huge capital cost to buy or lease. And those numbers are for the boeing factory freighter, the conversion numbers are probably lower.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by BMLtech on Wed Mar 04, 2015 9:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
corytrevor
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 77
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: sunnyvail

Re: Kelowna Flightcraft moving to YYZ

Post by corytrevor »

rudder wrote: And those numbers are for the boeing factory freighter, the conversion numbers are probably lower
Slightly higher numbers.
---------- ADS -----------
 
BMLtech
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 4:37 pm

Re: Kelowna Flightcraft moving to YYZ

Post by BMLtech »

Slightly higher numbers.[/quote]

Interesting. In older freighter conversions, structural payload limits were often lower, due to the lack of re-enforced floor beams etc. that were used on the factory freighter models. This often meant that the conversions could have a slightly lower OEW, but also a lower MZFW.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Realitychex
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 460
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 2:37 pm

Re: Kelowna Flightcraft moving to YYZ

Post by Realitychex »

boeingboy wrote:Because there is a market for this.

I agree - on the surface - simply stopping in Anchorage seems kind of odd, I'm sure there's a reason though.......maybe it's what his customer wants. No freight forwarder would use DHL or Purolator.....are you nuts????? It costs $9 to send a letter to Victoria. That's why they use belly space. Now give them a dedicated plane and you'd be surprised how fast you could fill it.

You do make some valid points, and I wouldn't use the 10's more than 2 or 3 years until you got something better - but the pros outweigh the cons in this case.

I mean come on......Do you really think Barry simply closed his eyes, pointed at a map and said "we're flying here - find someone to fill the plane"??? :roll:

BL is one of the sharpest aviation business guys out there, and miles ahead of his competitors. He's smart enough not to buy cargo contracts bid so low they'll result in, at best, marginal returns.

When the low bidders are unable to fulfill the contract, BL will be waiting in the wings.

In the meantime, he's got lots of business on his plate.

8)
---------- ADS -----------
 
palebird
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 6:17 am

Re: Kelowna Flightcraft moving to YYZ

Post by palebird »

You guys are really funny. Bought and paid for. BL is good in his little sandbox where he has all kinds of control. But he is overstepping his boundaries. There are far bigger sharks in the sea than BL. He is but a minnow.
---------- ADS -----------
 
BMLtech
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 4:37 pm

Re: Kelowna Flightcraft moving to YYZ

Post by BMLtech »

It will also be interesting to see how Cargojet makes out with the CP/Purolator contract. I wish then the best, a few of my buddies are working there now. On the KF/CP/Purolator line haul, aircraft utilization was usually no more that 4 or 5 hours per night. That's real low utilization for an expensive asset like a B757F or B767F.
Makes me wonder if they are going to run a different type of sked. to get the utilization up.Maybe they are planning day runs to service their other customers.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Realitychex
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 460
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 2:37 pm

Re: Kelowna Flightcraft moving to YYZ

Post by Realitychex »

palebird wrote:You guys are really funny. Bought and paid for. BL is good in his little sandbox where he has all kinds of control. But he is overstepping his boundaries. There are far bigger sharks in the sea than BL. He is but a minnow.

There isn't an outfit in Canada that wouldn't mind having a tiny fraction of the success BL has had, and will have in the future.

Barry doesn't buy business. Never has, never will.

I suspect people would be blown away by how little he has in that DC10 fleet. It's peanuts. He can afford to not bother with contracts where he loses a little each day, but makes it up on volume.

Others will blow their brains out chasing that business.

It's not a sprint, it's a marathon.

8)
---------- ADS -----------
 
rudder
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2254
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:10 pm

Re: Kelowna Flightcraft moving to YYZ

Post by rudder »

Realitychex wrote:
There isn't an outfit in Canada that wouldn't mind having a tiny fraction of the success BL has had, and will have in the future.

Barry doesn't buy business. Never has, never will.

I suspect people would be blown away by how little he has in that DC10 fleet. It's peanuts. He can afford to not bother with contracts where he loses a little each day, but makes it up on volume.

Others will blow their brains out chasing that business.

It's not a sprint, it's a marathon.

8)
If BL is so bright, then how did he lose the Purolator contract?
---------- ADS -----------
 
BMLtech
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 4:37 pm

Re: Kelowna Flightcraft moving to YYZ

Post by BMLtech »

If BL is so bright, then how did he lose the Purolator contract?[/quote]

If I had to make a guess, I would say that it had to do with the price of oil (and jet fuel) being at an all time high, and perhaps purolator no longer wanted to pay the fuel for a thirsty fleet. BL probably didn't see upgrading to a more efficient fleet as economically viable, given the low utilization.He has said so himself in the past. Now the price of oil has crashed. Interesting how these things play out.
Another thing that I would be willing to bet money on, is that all of those DC10's are paid off by the previous contract, probably with enough left over to get several engines overhauled. The same thing happened when Greyhound shut down in the 90's. KF ended up with a fleet of B727-200 paid for, and promptly whacked cargo doors into them and put them on the Purolator contract...not the first rodeo for BL.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Realitychex
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 460
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 2:37 pm

Re: Kelowna Flightcraft moving to YYZ

Post by Realitychex »

rudder wrote:
Realitychex wrote:
There isn't an outfit in Canada that wouldn't mind having a tiny fraction of the success BL has had, and will have in the future.

Barry doesn't buy business. Never has, never will.

I suspect people would be blown away by how little he has in that DC10 fleet. It's peanuts. He can afford to not bother with contracts where he loses a little each day, but makes it up on volume.

Others will blow their brains out chasing that business.

It's not a sprint, it's a marathon.

8)
If BL is so bright, then how did he lose the Purolator contract?
Why bid on a contract against others who are buying business? What's the point? Barry's been to that rodeo countless times over the years. Guess who's still in business?

8)
---------- ADS -----------
 
palebird
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 6:17 am

Re: Kelowna Flightcraft moving to YYZ

Post by palebird »

Rodeo.. exactly my point..if BL is looking to expand his borders rodeo riders need not apply.. mildly amusing
---------- ADS -----------
 
ywg9
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 140
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2006 2:47 pm

Re: Kelowna Flightcraft moving to YYZ

Post by ywg9 »

Maybe he didn't lose the contract, now by that I mean maybe he let it go ( bid your lowest and thats it, should you bid to lose money)His costs were getting up there he has had a battle with alpa previously and this is a good way to start with a fresh Labour force at low cost when you bid on the work again in a few years. Also dont forget he sits on the Canada post board, Just a thought. I never worked for him but I to wouldn't bet against BL. He's a smart man and a man that has a lot of contacts in the freight moving world and knows a heck of a lot more about aviation business and freight than anyone here. Even a small piece of the pie is a pretty big pay day and it keeps your planes flying, on that note I don't recall them saying what the fleet was. my 2 cents
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “General Airline Industry Comments”