Sure. It's not like there are records of any transactions or anything....

You really do believe everything you read. As a minimum, consider the timing of this article.

Looks easy to prove, Polar management had their hand in the till and got caught. Slam dunk....oh the beauty of emails and paper trails.

To be fair 18 million dollars in the middle of a 5.2 billion dollar deal is chump change.

(Read in a New York Italian accent)

Hoyya doin’, we’ll like ya to use Polar for all ya shipping needs

*snap
( Sound of breaking a leg on the FBI tapes)

The 747 is cheaper than anything else, for certain cargo, on certain routes. Flowers, is one example, where the 747 is cheaper.
The best mix going forward, for large aircraft, long distance cargo, is some combination of the 747/777 or 747/350 (or maybe all 3).

This isn’t the first time, specifically with Polar if I recall many moons ago. Good, bad whatever - may be another pay as you go and just keep on swimming/carry on.

True, good assumption on all 3. Makes sense and while not a huge requirement by any means, having the 74 ability to carry outsize/extended cargo loading from the front occasionally has its merits which keeps the queen all encompassing until the An-124s somehow became nickels to operate. FedEx order will be quite large for pure replacement purposes whatever they choose. Good timing if they need to slender up or expand although the later seems doubtful - who knows, time will tell.

* Like most anything- 74s will just continue to fly max effort til time limits are met and/or the cost benefit analysis wipes each 400 out by a triple or 350 replacement. -8s will be around for decades. Our Queen doesn’t lackadaisically sit around like some iron at other outfits, demands are different in many ways. She makes it rain.

Not sure why the 767s are dismissed so quickly. From a simple search you'll find that the average 767 freighter costs $17.5 million. The average A350 or 777 costs $366 million (in 2018) and the 747-8 costs $400 million.

Yes the 767 carries half the tonnage and doesn't have the same range but it's a solid and cheap workhorse. I mean smaller start-up air freight companies use the 767 and can turn enough of a profit to stay in business.

If anything the 76 should remain a solid support for the bigger wide-bodies. And as our supply chain moves to central and south America, do we really need the range benefits in the end? What about the airports and their limitations?

Personally I hope that Atlas reconsiders its stance on the 76. At least put us on some of the posters lol.

The only benefit that comes with the wider widebodies is that it takes less pilots to fly more tonnage. In a world of less pilot supply this makes sense.

Makes sense when using list prices vs actually paid for in a batch. More you buy, less you pay. Doubt UA is paying full price for 100 787s. 76 is a great hauler no doubt and being produced with large orders. Just a thought, but maybe it’s not just tonnage but what you carry = profit margin, just different contracts. You can carry silver or gold I guess would be a better comparison. Things do dry up of course. Obviously a need for the 76, but the discussion originated from a Purple poster if I’m not mistaken and the aircraft referenced were the 747, 777 and a350. Purple already had a 50+ order in for 76s a few years ago for their own replacement program, requirements and growth strategy or whatever. Maybe this has been answered but leads to a question. Is DHL moving one of their leased birds (76) we have to another outfit? I was just curious and it may be old news and if this is true why? Kill this info now if incorrect as I cannot validate this.

*Guessing Amazon profit margins are on the lower side, but I have been wrong before no doubt. Either way, isn’t there higher profits to be had by the 76 freighters? We need that gold.