CRJ200 'Package Freighter'

Cheechako

Cheechako

Well-Known Member
I was at an aviation trade show this weekend here in Alaska and talked to a Bombardier rep. They've got plans for all those CRJ200s that nobody wants anymore! He said Bombardier hasn't given him any money to develop a large cargo door until he has some firm orders.

Not too surprising to me...

Here are pictures of the brochure:

IMG_0695.jpgIMG_0696.jpg
 
This has been out for a while, like 2006 or 2007. There are two of these flying freight up in northern Europe (Finland I think?) doing long, thin routes where they need the range of the jet, but it's uneconomical to bring something larger in.
 
It will certainly be economical, because freight companies can actually price their services to a level that yields them a thicker profit margin than what passenger operators (at least here in the US) can manage.
 
There might be a few routes that long and thin in the US, but I wouldn't think many. And for the shorter stuff, an ATR will do it for a lot less $$$.
 
Murdoughnut said:
I guess if you have to get blood, urine and semen a long distance in a short time...
Click to expand...

I don't have the numbers in front of me, but my WAG is that for small volume stuff like that the Lear 35s would do the trick just fine.
 
Cheechako said:
I was at an aviation trade show this weekend here in Alaska and talked to a Bombardier rep. They've got plans for all those CRJ200s that nobody wants anymore! He said Bombardier hasn't given him any money to develop a large cargo door until he has some firm orders.

Not too surprising to me...

Here are pictures of the brochure:

View attachment 17237View attachment 17236
Click to expand...

How was the show? I was hoping to get up there this year but life got in the way. There's always next time...
 
Lame. There's a bunch of airplanes out there that will do the same job for less. Not every CRJ driver can do a freight dawgs job, and we like it that way.
 
z987k said:
Interesting. I'd be curious if it's actually economical to do that.
Click to expand...

Here in Brazil it would be perfect for the mail, all the mail is flown here. All the intl mail gets to Sao Paulo then from there with the local mail it gets flown to other main cities near the final destination. They never climb higher then 20-21K feet and the legs are pretty short. Right now they use 727s for that!!! there are no smaller cheaper cargo planes available.
 
Folks, there is a reason why FDX is looking for more 777's opposed to more 757's. And it's not just because the winglets of a 757 require a widebody gate...Size matters.
 
Pretty big for loose packages, wonder if they are planning a can version. I don't see a market at all for that in the states, but then I'm not very "visionary".
 
Itchy said:
Pretty big for loose packages, wonder if they are planning a can version. I don't see a market at all for that in the states, but then I'm not very "visionary".
Click to expand...

There are some runs where it would make sense. Places that fill a ATR or Brasila or are part of mid route stop could support a CRJ comming direct from Memphis of Louisville.

The other market for this is replacing all the worn out Falcon 20s doing on demand freight when that market picks back up.
 
USMCmech said:
There are some runs where it would make sense. Places that fill a ATR or Brasila or are part of mid route stop could support a CRJ comming direct from Memphis of Louisville.

The other market for this is replacing all the worn out Falcon 20s doing on demand freight when that market picks back up.
Click to expand...

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see how a CRJ is more cost efficient than say a ATR or Caravan (depending on cargo/distance). I could see something more in the 700/900 size for the "custom critical" items compared to a 727, but not a -200.
 
higney85 said:
Maybe it's just me, but I don't see how a CRJ is more cost efficient than say a ATR or Caravan (depending on cargo/distance). I could see something more in the 700/900 size for the "custom critical" items compared to a 727, but not a -200.
Click to expand...

Right now FedEx sends an A300 to Lubbock, then cross loads 4 Caravans to take freight to Abilene. Instead of all that, a CRJ could go straight to ABI from Memphis. UPS sends a MD-11 to DFW, then fills a Metro and a Braslia to fly to Midland. With a CRJ they could go straight from Louisville to the destination. Also some cities have heavys stop, unload half their freight, then fly onto their final destination half empty. Eliminating that stop or the second leg might make more sense.

I'm not sure a CRJ would be cheaper, but it's possible. It's not just the cost of the flight time, it's facilities and personel to sort and load at the smaller hubs, as well as the time lost. Esspecially if they could design a system for loading RJ sized "cans".

For on demand stuff, most of the work is done with turboprops, Lears, and Falcons. If you could put a bigger door on a 200 you would have a nice replacement for the Falcons. The purchase price could be offset by the savings in MX and fuel. A 700/900 would probably be too big for that work, and too small to replace the 727, 737, and Dc-9s.
 
USMCmech said:
Right now FedEx sends an A300 to Lubbock, then cross loads 4 Caravans to take freight to Abilene. Instead of all that, a CRJ could go straight to ABI from Memphis. UPS sends a MD-11 to DFW, then fills a Metro and a Braslia to fly to Midland. With a CRJ they could go straight from Louisville to the destination. Also some cities have heavys stop, unload half their freight, then fly onto their final destination half empty. Eliminating that stop or the second leg might make more sense.

I'm not sure a CRJ would be cheaper, but it's possible. It's not just the cost of the flight time, it's facilities and personel to sort and load at the smaller hubs, as well as the time lost. Esspecially if they could design a system for loading RJ sized "cans".

For on demand stuff, most of the work is done with turboprops, Lears, and Falcons. If you could put a bigger door on a 200 you would have a nice replacement for the Falcons. The purchase price could be offset by the savings in MX and fuel. A 700/900 would probably be too big for that work, and too small to replace the 727, 737, and Dc-9s.
Click to expand...

1 of the caravans is only 3 days a week (sweet run), other two are only 4 days a week. So there might be a lot of wasted space a couple of days of the week when the freight is low.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top