I thought it was interesting post, but my take away was for some reason you can buy MD-11s and parts really cheap.

The AADs fit the bus well. Appears to me, wag, we're carrying allot more pounds with the new cans. More cube available.

Maybe I've got this wrong but isn't it better for us (pilots not the company) to fly a smaller airplane as long as it still pays the same? What I'm getting at is we can still keep the pay rate but continue flying into airports that may not make sense for a bigger airplane. Similar reasoning made me glad we didn't take the A380. It takes more 777's to do the same job as 380's (although we would have had a higher pay rate for the 380).

I think that the company is positioning for flat or declining express volumes and doesn't think it needs the capacity of the bigger airframes anymore.

AMJ - 590 cubic feet
AAD - 502 cubic feet


That's less, not more, which was my point.






.

My thoughts exactly . That is that it takes more 767's to haul the freight that a smaller number of MD-11's or 777's can haul . They all pay the same . Range is another matter.

Landing slots is another matter...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The amj doesn't fit the bus correctly. I don't have the load chart in front of me but I think you get almost two AADs for every one AMJ. Wasn't trying to challenge anybody just adding to the conversation. Next time I'm at work I'll check the charts glued to the interior by the door and correct myself if needed.

As far as the MOAB, apparently we are getting 5 more 777's coming to the line this year (2 or 3 of those coming from TNT). Other than that, I have not heard a peep about TNT...

It will be interesting to see if the buyers of TNT's airline will keep the 777's or if we will bring them over to our side. The buyer when UPS was involved was ASL Airlines. They have ops in Ireland, France, Switzerland, and Hungary according to their website. They fly aircraft as big as the A300. I'm based over here in Europe and nobody knows nuttin over here, I've asked around as much as I can.
I do know that the TNT guys are worried about their futures (rightly so). Hopefully we will see some growth and there will be enough flying for everyone, who know?
I believe that they also use some contract flying in addition to their 737's, 747's, 777's and a few remaining BAE 146's (with PanAir).

Wonder if FedEx is going to try to wet lease from whomever buys TNT airlines. Just a random thought. A lot of wet leasing going on, here, more to come?

Haven't heard about 5 777's but I did hear from a very reliable source (Bus lady's boss e.g....) that we WERE getting TNT's 3 777's and that those 3 were all that we were getting this year (so far).

If you're interested, you can find the load charts in the MEL on your iPad. My favorite phrase during Airbus training was, "On some aircraft ..." They never tell you which ones, just to look out for this or that and be ready if you stumble across it. ;)

In this case, the "some aircraft" appear to be some A300-600s. Take a look at MEL 25-50-02-01-J -- that 's the only one that shows the upper deck configured with AAD cans. There are 3 possible configurations:

A) 9 AMJs and 17 AYYs
B) 16 AADs, 3 SAAs, and 1 AYY
C) 9 AADs and 17 AYYs

The configuration including AMJs holds approximately 8,730 cubic feet. The configuration using 16 AADs holds 9,514 cubic feet, while the configuration using 9 AADs holds 7,935 cubic feet.

The 2 AADs for every 1 AMJ would be hard to pull off considering the footprint of the cans. AMJs are 96" wide by 125" long; AADs and AYYs have the same footprint - 88" wide by 125" long.

The AADs have an advantage over the AYYs because they are taller at their highest point. However, compared to the AMJs, they are more narrow and have a more severe taper from that maximum height. The AMJ is flat along most of its width, while the AAD begins tapering almost from the very center to the outboard edge.






.

So using AADs instead of AMJs increases the volume 10%.

Or 10% less, depending on which loading configuration is used on " some" A300-600s.

I provided details about A300/A310 loading because Full pull claimed you could put 2 AADs in the place of 1 AMJ, which is clearly not the case. I fail to see, however, how any discussion of Airbus loading has anything to do with the claims made by Global Western that an MD-11 is better than a B-767 for hauling freight.

I believe someone (Perm11FO) said their claims amounted to "putting lipstick on a pig". I'm still waiting to hear facts to substantiate such rhetoric.






.

Just my opinion but one interpretation of Global Westerns claim could be that MD-11s are essentially free for the taking.

I won't claim to have the knowledge Tony does of the cans and loading of the jets. But I will share a couple anecdotes from Asia...

NRT-SIN is gone from the 767 bidpack in Mar, and flight 5311 is now distributed across the 3 MD-11 bidpacks. Scheduled for just under 7:30, I went 8:19 on the flight yesterday. ATC delays and strong winds make that a pretty long flight. Add a few hiccups like holding and you go over 8 hours. Rather than jam an RFO into the 767 it appears the company decided the MD11 might be a better fit after all.

Second point was a friend ended up on Hotel standby because his CAN-ICN run had too much freight and they gauged up to an MD11 for that flight. The LAX hotel stby crew indicated they "expect" to fly most nights during their standby and this was a common occurrence.

I R simple pilot, not a smart MBA. I have no idea what the yield is per pound or total costs of using an -11 vice 767 on any segment. What is apparent to my operator perspective, however, is that the comm indicating the 767 will "replace" the -11 flying intra-Asia may have been a tad premature. Unless we reduce the scheduled freight and add an RFO to some of the longer legs, I suspect the MadDog is still gonna be seen on the CAN ramp....at least for a while.

And for the record, I'm not sniping at anyone in flight ops or on the line on this one. It just seems to me that maybe some of the capabilities we have with the MD-11 may not be captured on a 1 for 1 basis with the 767. We burned about 87,000 pounds of gas on the trip, so its obviously a pretty fuel efficient platform. Looking at PFC, you rarely read about any issues with the plane when you read the duty officer's reports. It may be the ideal MD-10 replacement domestically. For over-water class II ops, however, we need a few improvements to match the capability of the -11, and I am not sure even if those are made the plane still won't be leaving some freight behind on some of the legs if we really do the 1 for 1 switch. Kudos to those guys trying to be efficient and make a buck...I get it. It just seems (to my untrained eye) like it might have been an optimistic overreach on at least a couple of the pairings.

The problem with NRT-SIN is that we can't fly the 767 in certain airspace without satellite datalink. We opted not to purchase it. So the route is longer.

Now that it is obvious that it should be augmented (at least this time of year), I think two very big issues with the current NRT-SIN run on the B767 are:

1. They flat out don't have enough HKG based B767 FO's to augment that leg and operate the rest of the bid pack.

2. With the new CBA, they would be required to give the crew a 36-hour layover and they want to turn them in 24.

These also could be reasons that segment is not in the March bidpack. I guess we'll know for sure if we see it put back in for the summer.

So anyway.... about that upcoming bid?

Yeah really, talk about thread creep!

Anyone got any rumors out there?

No joke. I thought the thread was going to be about bid rumors. Instead it was a few crewmembers arguing over the volume of the cans on the aircraft. I bet those guys are a blast at parties.

I heard that the long awaited LM200 Loadmaster bid was finally coming out. And it's massive.

Exactly. Since post #36, it's been all about the damn cans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXRM3lFRwRI

Well...I am sort of geeky...but it does seem to me the amount of freight on certain airframes might have a direct correlation to fleet decisions, which affect future bids.

Go read the 767 HKG bid FCIF and the 75/76 page, and you'll read about how the 76 was going to replace the -11 on the intra-Asia flying. What a few of us are pointing out is...well...that ain't happening.

Where are those -11 coming from that ARE doing the flying? Seems to be LAX and ANC crews doing most of it. To my un-trained eye, that seems to bode well for those bases staying strong or perhaps even growing a bit, or at least the MEM -11 doing more international for a while longer. Perhaps the NRT-SIN will end up being done by a 777 at some point.

But if you would rather just pass on schoolhouse rumors--press. I was just trying to pass on some datapoints from the field. :)

^^Well, that is a more interesting and readable way to pass on the data points. Technical analysis of the specifics of each can, not so much. Most of the audience out here is easily distracted and schoolhouse rumors are far more fun.....wait, look, squirrel!:)

Squirrel?!?!? Where???

Ahhh, nutsssss!

For those with short attention spans, a recap:

Post #2:

A discussion about the viability of the MD ensued.


Go Broncos!






.

Did you say you saw a squirrel?

Saw it. Shot it. Tasted like chicken.






.

Cindy stopped in at ground school today like she does. She mentioned the need for 100 captains on the MD. Timeframe is (my guess) within a year or two. Subject to flex, slide, and to be proven completely false, as with all information. Could change tomorrow.

When does bid for itu training dates get implemented, cause this happy horse rap of moving training dates forward sucks. I'm willing to wait to upgrade rather than try to plan my life around the nebulous training letter.