KFC and the 727's
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
-
- Rank 3
- Posts: 135
- Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 8:02 am
-
- Rank 3
- Posts: 170
- Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 2:10 pm
- invertedattitude
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2353
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 1:12 pm
- invertedattitude
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2353
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 1:12 pm
-
- Rank 1
- Posts: 49
- Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 9:02 am
- invertedattitude
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2353
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 1:12 pm
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
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1048
- Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 11:54 pm
- Location: Cloud #8
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=-
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=-
Sometimes I think it's a shame when I get feelin' better when I'm feelin no pain.
- invertedattitude
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2353
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 1:12 pm
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.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=-
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
- MyWave
- Rank 1
- Posts: 45
- Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 4:20 pm
- Location: Directly above the Centre of The Earth
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.
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.
-
- Rank 3
- Posts: 170
- Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 2:10 pm
I don't know much about the big jets, but why would you need 4 pilots in the cockpit?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.
"Keep thy airspeed up, lest the earth come from below and smite thee."
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?
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?
"It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues." - Abraham Lincoln (1809 - 1865)
- invertedattitude
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2353
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 1:12 pm
-
- Rank 2
- Posts: 93
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2005 11:58 pm
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.
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
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2353
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 1:12 pm