GEAR UP --@ FLIGHTCRAFT

ice ice baby · Post by **ice ice baby** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 11:38 pm

Heard somebody in maintenance at flightcraft brought the gear up while a '27 was on the ground about a month ago...anybody got any info on that one? It's gotta be a fun job that jack that baby up again

chowda · Post by **chowda** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:27 am

Where? Out west or Ontario? If its out west, I can probably find out.

Cool Rythms! · Post by **Cool Rythms!** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 9:28 am

As long as it wasn't the Big Yellow Taxi. That was the one I enjoyed flying the most, when I was there. In any case, hope the damage was minimal and nobody was hurt.

Panama Jack · Post by **Panama Jack** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 9:36 am

Any thoughts on how much of a life the 727's have left in Canada? Cool airplanes for sure, but sustained oil prices at $50+ a barrel must make them expensive to operate.

therubberjungle · Post by **therubberjungle** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 10:47 am

The B-727, especially @ KFC, will have a long life in Canada. Sure, they burn about 10,000 pounds of fuel per hour but there's 50,000 pounds of freight in the back. Compare that to something in the bizjet range which can haul 4-5000 lbs of cargo with around 2000 pph for fuel burn. The "Boeing Garbage Truck" still makes economic sense: look at KFC, Cargojet, Morningstar and Ace - they all use them.

Cheers

nite_owl · Post by **nite_owl** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:05 pm

Well the older ones are going the way of the beer can/ man made reef due to ageing aircraft inspections, RVSM, and a host of avionics upgrades required in todays airspace. Since there's no longer support from Boeing, their retirement is dictated these days largely on the presumed cost of their next 'C' check.

DA900 · Post by **DA900** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:08 pm

There was talk a little while back of replacing the 727 with 757. I know the 757 has a bit of a resurgence. Is there a lack of replacements? Has KFC decided to put it on the backburner for a while?

Cool Rythms! · Post by **Cool Rythms!** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 2:19 pm

Last I heard from inside, the 757 project has been scrapped.

Northern Flyer · Post by **Northern Flyer** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 2:33 pm

Just pack the seats closer together so you can get a few more rows in the cabin. Isn't that how the fuel costs are countered???

Inverted2 · Post by **Inverted2** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 2:46 pm

The Big Yellow Taxi is alive and well, spending a lot of time sitting up at the Shell Aerocenter at YYZ

Cool Rythms! · Post by **Cool Rythms!** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 5:24 pm

Which probably means that all, or most of the southern flying is done. When I was on the Taxi, we were only doing about two or three flights per week. I don't know what else KFA has planned for that aircraft. One rumor, from inside, has it that they will cut a cargo door into it and dedicate it to the freight side of the company. But things do change.

flyincanuck · Post by **flyincanuck** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 6:35 pm

Well, a while back there was talk of a new Canada 3000. Then they changed their name to "Fly Flair". Apparently a few Ex C3 guys were going to start pax service out of YHM using one or two KF 727s (including the Big Yellow Taxi). The other one was had a brown tail and had "Leavin on a jet plane" in creepy gothic letters (don't think that was KFs). I'm just regurgitating speculation from the a.net post.

Anyway - the guy did come visit our FBO (for turn prices, etc) back when I was working there.

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/ge ... 1768416/4/

Clearly nothing has happened within the last four or five months...looks like they fizzled out quickly.

flyincanuck · Post by **flyincanuck** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 6:37 pm

Oh...and the Fly Flair website: http://flyflair.com

DA900 · Post by **DA900** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 6:39 pm

Yes that is KFC and its flying out of YVR.

corn-shoot · Post by **corn-shoot** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 7:58 pm

Awww cripes...Big Yellow Taxi, Leavin on a jet plane. Paint a green smiley on er' boys and get it over with

Cargodog · Post by **Cargodog** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 8:13 pm

Even at 5400 litres an hour the captial cost of the 27 helps it remain attractive. Sure the 57 has the better burn, but you lose it on the high ownership $$$. Besides, even with some upward gauge change you'd still need a smaller sized jet to service the system (eg. 57s could operate trunk lanes, but the 27s - or similar gauge - would still need to service the smaller markets).

And from an increase in payload/revenue standpoint the 57 only has 3 (I think) extra positions up top (correct me if I'm wrong).

So long as the heavy checks on the 27 remains financially viable they'll keep on doing the long and lonely flights in the deep dark night. Hell, if they're still flying the DC3 around, I'm sure they can keep these babies going. I know some of them out there arent that old (eg early 80s)

I'm fairly certain that all the domestic freighters are already RVSM equiped. The 100s have definately seen their day, but i think the -200s will be with us for a bit yet.

The heavyweight -200s can pull in up to 60,000 lbs. Tough to beat for the price and the reliability is still there.

Anyhow, IMHO.

Cargodog

Pat Richard · Post by **Pat Richard** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 12:14 am

If the fuel costs dont kill them, the noise pollution most likely will. 727's are by far the noisest commercial a/c out there today, not including 737 classics. Given the nocturnal schedule's most of them operate, it's only a matter of time(due to lawsuits/or higher landing fees')that they get pushed into the desert.
Europe is a perfect example.

flyincanuck · Post by **flyincanuck** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 6:33 am

727's are by far the noisest commercial a/c out there today, not including 737 classics.

Hah! I don't think so! Have you ever heard an IL-76!? PLus all the 727s are equipped with Stage III hush kits.

Cargodog · Post by **Cargodog** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 8:04 am

Lawsuits? Haven't seen any of those yet.

Always makes me laugh. Folks move beside a set of train tracks and expect to hear a train, but move beside an airport and the resident has the trump card?

Most of the major airport have all been around longer than the residents. Aircraft noises have steadily dropped over the past 30 years from Chapter 2, to Charter 3, with Chapter 4 on the horizon. The 777 is one of the quietest out there and the A380 will even be lower.

The hushkitted 27 has less noise output than a 747-200 or a DC10.

They cant be making that much noise if FX are able to get away with YYZ after hours operations! Lord knows the bleeding hearts that cant sleep with any noise level above a pin drop would be screaming bloody murder.

I dont think noise is as big an issue as you make it out to be. Most of the airports serviced by the overnight carriers are outside of the city (eg YHZ/YMX/YHM/YEG). And for those within the city, well, have you seen the neighborhood that lines the YWG perimeter? I doubt those folks are asleep in the middle of the night anyhow. YVR brings them in over the water after hours, YYC has noise abatement procedure, etc.

These overnight aircraft have been servicing the major centres on roughly the same schedule for a couple of decades now, so why think that suddenly they're going to get shut down due to "lawsuits". Looks like they have grandfather rights over a resident that just moved into his new house not knowing why there's so much noise - buyer beware.

And higher landing fees? I've yet to see an airport in Canada levy a noise surcharge although they do in Europe. If anything they should offer a reduction to helping provide airport revenues during non-peak hours.

The aircraft type isnt going anywhere for a bit yet.

Cargodog

Cool Rythms! · Post by **Cool Rythms!** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 8:29 am

That's a nice pic of the 27 in YLW. I sure miss good old Kelowna. I think I'm about due for a visit. It's great in the summer! By the way, to add my two cents, I think the old 737 -200's can most certainly compete with the 727 for noise levels. What type of flying is that 727 going to do in YVR, will it be sports charters, cadets or southbound charters? Is she as well equipped as 719?

Cargodog · Post by **Cargodog** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 9:21 am

Pat Richard · Post by **Pat Richard** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:57 am

I agree, most people are idiots when it comes to the noise issue/airports.
YVR settled a lawsuit not that long ago which was due to noise, and
given that there are more people moving to the area(Richmond/Kits)around yvr, I think its only a matter of time before there's another lawsuit.
The big bitch for the previous suit was the "noise" a/c were making on approach over Richmond. Kinda strange, but they settled out of court if I remember.

North Shore · Post by **North Shore** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 12:16 pm

Just a picky geographical correction...Kits is at least 10km from CYVR. Closer neghbourhoods are Marpole, Musqueam, Southlands, Kerrisdale and Dunbar - all high rent areas, nonetheless. My parents have some friends who live on Deering Island - some reclaimed land on the north side of the North Arm of the river. Every once in a while I get it in the neck from them about the noise from the airport....which has been there since the '20's, while their subdivision was made in ~'95!

Cargodog · Post by **Cargodog** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 12:35 pm

At my last check, 727-200 landing in YVR runs about $417 (base on 85 ton MTOW)

So from just a freighter standpoint 3xCJT, 2xKFC, 1xFx each day x 250 op days per year @ $417 per op = $625,500 per year just for those (then add the other 27's and the KFC/CJT pax ops that'll op through YVR)

Not sure the size of the last lawsuit in YVR, but the freighters are bringing in upwards of $625,500 just in landing fees per year.

If I was the airport, I'd just budget for some small out of court settlements and plan on pocketing the half mill $$ for after hours 27 ops.

Remember, gauge upgrades could result in frequency reduction (eg 757 or larger could equate to replacing say two 727s = less ground handling/less NAV fees/less planes to fuel/less landing fees). Granted the increase in gauge brings and increase in cost, but still a consideration.

The airports are all businesses with bottom lines to maintain and the almighty dollar rules at the end of the day, not the bleeding heart socialists who go to bed at 8pm after an exciting night of Matlock.

Cargodog

w squared · Post by **w squared** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 3:00 pm

HEY! Matlock is quality entertainment...when he's solving those cases the way he...

Sorry, I just can't do it. Even with my tongue poking straight through my cheek I can't defend Matlock, or those folks that build their homes next to an airport and then complain about noise.