KFC and the 727's

jsmetalbashers · Post by **jsmetalbashers** » Sat Aug 25, 2007 7:34 am

No 57's are in the future for KFC as far as flying freight is concerned, but there are talks of upgrading the fleet in the next few years.

RatherBeFlyingInCanada · Sat Aug 25, 2007 12:44 pm

What would replace the 727's? 767's?

invertedattitude · Post by **invertedattitude** » Sat Aug 25, 2007 12:59 pm

Only for my personal interest a 737NG Cargo conversion.

737-800F all the way

matrix · Post by **matrix** » Sat Aug 25, 2007 1:10 pm

Maybe this kinda thing? B733C

invertedattitude · Post by **invertedattitude** » Sat Aug 25, 2007 1:16 pm

"Upgrading" to 733's would seem impractical, they're starting to get long in the tooth as well.

If they're NOT looking at the 757F's it will be interesting to see what the choice is.

185/310 · Post by **185/310** » Sat Aug 25, 2007 2:30 pm

A 737 would be too small to compare to the 727 loads, and the 757's cargo, I think theres a long waiting list to either get one, or to get the mod done.

TheEvilTwin · Post by **TheEvilTwin** » Sat Aug 25, 2007 5:42 pm

Get ahold of some DC10s.... sweeeeeet....

. ._ · Post by **. ._** » Sat Aug 25, 2007 6:12 pm

WTF?!?!

The Colonel is one smart cookie! He's gonna be flyin' 757s to the reserves now?

Nice to see KFC doing so well!

-istp

invertedattitude · Post by **invertedattitude** » Sun Aug 26, 2007 8:39 am

185/310 wrote:A 737 would be too small to compare to the 727 loads, and the 757's cargo, I think theres a long waiting list to either get one, or to get the mod done.

737-800BBJ2 Cabin Area (What would be converted): 1000 square feet (approx, the BBJ2 is listed as 25% more cabin that the BBJ1 which is 807 square feet)

727-200 This is Cabin AND Cockpit (Couldnt find just Cabin): 1,066 square feet or roughly 1,000 sq.feet

So while the 727 is much Longer than the 737-800 almost 20 feet in length, that's mostly tail not cargo area.

The 737-800 also has very deep belly pits, not quite as tall as the 27 though.

The Fuel savings alone would pay for the small difference in cargo capacity, and I very much doubt these airplanes are flying full to the brim every night year round.

LostinRotation · Post by **LostinRotation** » Sun Aug 26, 2007 9:21 am

Isn't cago capacity the main issue here though ?
If you save on fuel costs but have to run an extra two aircraft to make up for the capacity loss it's better to stay with the 27's.

But...as loads increase to the point they need to add extra 27's (very close now from what I hear....sept-oct) then converting to 67's makes sense. YHM-YVR direct etc. 57's are still too expensive to make that argument. Also running an extra convair for the loads too small to make a 67 run or keeping some of the 27's around until their D checks.

As for the Cargo conversion wait times....lol...they'll just do the conversion themselves !

-=0=LiR=0=-

invertedattitude · Post by **invertedattitude** » Sun Aug 26, 2007 11:29 am

LostinRotation wrote:Isn't cago capacity the main issue here though ?
If you save on fuel costs but have to run an extra two aircraft to make up for the capacity loss it's better to stay with the 27's.

But...as loads increase to the point they need to add extra 27's (very close now from what I hear....sept-oct) then converting to 67's makes sense. YHM-YVR direct etc. 57's are still too expensive to make that argument. Also running an extra convair for the loads too small to make a 67 run or keeping some of the 27's around until their D checks.

As for the Cargo conversion wait times....lol...they'll just do the conversion themselves !

-=0=LiR=0=-

YHM-YVR may someday take the capacity of a 767, but other routes like to YQM and YYT could be different, and I'm purely parlour talking here by the way.

the 37-800 would provide roughly a direct size fit to the 727 with massive fuel savings at the same time.

I will miss the ol dirty birds rumbling the pictures off the walls of my house every night though

asdfasd · Post by **asdfasd** » Sun Aug 26, 2007 8:09 pm

the 727s will be going going gone by regulation sooner than later. KFc will be forced into another type, only a mixed fleet will satisfy their needs. 767 / 757 / 737-300.

MyWave · Post by **MyWave** » Mon Aug 27, 2007 7:42 pm

Flightcraft seems to take the attitude of "If it's not broken, don't even THINK about fixing it."

That is why they have slightly too few pilots for the work they have NOW. (Daytime CPC flying, anyone? You heard it here first.)

They will never get rid of the 727's until they absolutely have to. Even though the current state of line-indoc means those gas-guzzling airplanes are flying with 4 pilots instead of three. Does that make sense?

No, but see the first sentence above.

RatherBeFlyingInCanada · Mon Aug 27, 2007 11:09 pm

MyWave wrote:Flightcraft seems to take the attitude of "If it's not broken, don't even THINK about fixing it."

That is why they have slightly too few pilots for the work they have NOW. (Daytime CPC flying, anyone? You heard it here first.)

They will never get rid of the 727's until they absolutely have to. Even though the current state of line-indoc means those gas-guzzling airplanes are flying with 4 pilots instead of three. Does that make sense?

No, but see the first sentence above.

I don't know much about the big jets, but why would you need 4 pilots in the cockpit?

Coast-dog · Post by **Coast-dog** » Mon Aug 27, 2007 11:13 pm

4 pilots; the new crew member needs to be line-indoc'd so there needs to be a 'handler'.

Something to remember is that little 'ole Canada has a population of only approximately 36 meeeeee-llion people compared to big brother down sawth with +300 meeeeeee-llion people.

I'm no rocket scientist but that would indicate to me that there's one helluva lot less freight to move coast to coast here in CAN.

A 757/767/DC8/DC10 freighter needs to be filled to the gill-liners with freight every time it flies for it to make money, does it not?

invertedattitude · Post by **invertedattitude** » Tue Aug 28, 2007 5:28 pm

Depends on how much you're charging, I don't know about cargo, but passenger tickets are dirt cheap south of the border... for that very reason, it's economy of scale.

plainfixer · Post by **plainfixer** » Sun Sep 02, 2007 12:25 am

Nope you are all wrong.
The B757/767/a300/a310/l1011 all need a MINIUM of 4 hrs cruise time to be MORE fuel efficent than the B727 doing 1 transit.
That means a B757/767/300/310/1011 flying from YVR to YWG then to YHM WILL use 2 or 3 times more fuel than a B727 will.
But if the B757/767/300/310/1011 goes YVR to YHM direct then it WILL use LESS fuel.

So unless purolator goes international they will not be looking for a wide body.
Why would you look at a B737 freighter when it carries LESS freight than the B727? Isnt that stupid? Didnt you guys hear about the Aussie freight company that sold the B727 to KFC and replaced it with a ex-qantas 737-400? then found out it carried less freight than a 727 and now they have to fly the B737-400 PLUS TWO extra aircraft to carry the same freight EACH night.

Now Fedex is retiring 120 perfectly good 727F's very soon. KFC will pick 50 frames very cheap, put them in storage and as the existing fleet starts to die out, re-activate a stored B727F. Never ending story!!!

Keep guessing now.

invertedattitude · Post by **invertedattitude** » Sun Sep 02, 2007 6:53 pm

I've been saying a 737-800 or 700, far cry from the 300/400/500 generation.

atpilot · Post by **atpilot** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 10:29 am

The purchase price for a 737-800 is way too expensive for KFC to consider it a viable replacement for the 727, even with the potential fuel savings. We'll just have to wait and see what B.L. has in store for the future. Stay tuned.

MyWave · Post by **MyWave** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 9:11 pm

atpilot wrote:We'll just have to wait and see what B.L. has in store for the future. Stay tuned.

The tough part is dealing with B.L.'s "managers"....