Ins and outs of air cargo

[FlyMarines09]

I'm doing a project on air logistics/air cargo for a college class with Embry Riddle. I'm trying to figure out how companies become a 'feeder' carrier for ups, fed ex, etc...

I'm also trying to figure out how aircraft are converted from passenger to cargo aircraft (such as Lears, MU2, Cheyennes, and what not)... Are they all under STC? What companies typically perform the conversions? Could the aircraft be operated as a combination aircraft?

Thanks

 

[Maurus]

As far as UPS they have bids for runs and the companies will bid. The company with the best bid in UPS's eyes will get the run.

Cargo conversions are interesting. They take out all the comfort items that they possibly can. The BE-99 got a raw deal with this.

 

[FlyMarines09]

What about UPS/Fedex owned aircraft that are leased to other carriers such as MAC or Wiggins?

 

[ASpilot2be]

What about UPS/Fedex owned aircraft that are leased to other carriers such as MAC or Wiggins?

UPS doesnt own any of the aircraft the feeders operate. I think FedEx owns most of the aircraft their feeders operate, and the feeders just operate them. There are obvious exceptions to this like Ameriflight, and a few others.

 

[FlyMarines09]

Can an operator run cargo and passengers under the same certificate/opspecs?

 

[Roger Roger]

Can an operator run cargo and passengers under the same certificate/opspecs?

Yeah, we do it every day.

 

[ASpilot2be]

Can an operator run cargo and passengers under the same certificate/opspecs?

I dont know about OPSPECS, but I know you can on the same certificate. Alaska Airlines has a dedicated cargo aircraft, and a few combis. Most major airlines make a lot of money from hauling cargo.

 

[Douglas]

Can an operator run cargo and passengers under the same certificate/opspecs?

To add and muddle the answer further, 135 operators could be limited to cargo only via CFR 135 if operating "example" equipped single engine aircraft.
-----
The easy answer is yes, with a few exceptions.

 

[z987k]

Sometimes the difference between passenger and cargo is the pilot takes the seats out and puts the boxes in. Then for the next trip the pilot puts the seats back in and has the people get on.

 

[FlyMarines09]

You wouldn't need a STC for removed seats and installing cargo nets if you were to switch between passengers and cargo?

The basis of the project is setting up a part 135 operation that meets typical demands in today's market...A ground freight based courier/freight/shipping company that moves into the air market. I'm trying to figure out a good aircraft fleet for such an operation that includes company owned aircraft, managed aircraft, and lease back aircraft... The operation serves the passenger and cargo markets utilizing dedicated cargo aircraft(owned), dedicated passenger aircraft (managed), small cargo aircraft (owned) and large cargo aircraft (third party partners and leased)....

What are some good aircraft for small cargo ops? Here's what I'm thinking:
Piper PA23 Aztec or Seneca III for documents and small parcels (First aircraft in the fleet, starting small)
PA31-350 for small parcels, large quantities of documents as well as larger freight
PA42-720 (or 400Ls or MU2b-60) for express freight, parcels, special needs, etc...) Eventually replaced by PC-12
DA-20F for large items, critical cargo, etc (eventually replaced with newer aircraft)
ATR42 or Jetstream 41F, or EMB-120 for longer routes
737-300F for long routes, heavy loads, larger airports.....
Any thoughts/suggestions?
What companies specialize in passenger to freight only conversions? Do avionics upgrades and airframe modifications require an STC?

Thanks for the replies and insight

 

[NickH]

The logistics of running such a diverse fleet might be difficult.

 

[FlyMarines09]

The said company would start off small with one or two aircraft and slowly add aircraft to their fleet... I'm thinking that a light twin/turborpop fleet of all piper aircraft would make things a little easier on the logistics sides for maintenance and pilot training, etc... I'm not sure which aircraft would be best to start with between the Aztec and Seneca... The aztec is slower, prob more expensive to operate, yet has a low acquisition cost, where as the Seneca is a little cheaper to operated, but has a higher initial price tag (about 2-2.5x higher).... Of course other factors should be considered as far as ease of loading, payload, performance, mission and what not.

How do company like AMF logistically operate with such a diverse aircraft fleet?

 

[NickH]

They aren't that diverse.

170 aircraft limited to (realistically) five types. Over the years they have bought up other operators and have phased out their aircraft in order to standardize their fleet. They are set up to run everything at the minimum possible short term cost. If they are doing it, it's cost effective.

Most of the freight operators have 2-3 different aircraft types.

 

[Roger Roger]

Standardization is absolutely key for running a fleet.

 

[z987k]

Ya, that fleet is ridiculous. You going to have a really hard time selling flights for the pipers and the 737. You'd have to basically be two different companies entirely at that point.

Also, IMO, you're going to have a hard time finding a whole lot of pilots willing to fly a pc-12 imc and night. It's a fine airplane, just like the 208, but when it really comes down to it, if the pt6 was really that reliable, you wouldn't do oei in king airs and cheyene's etc. If I'm flying night in night out through the •, give me 2 or keep your freight on the ground.

 

[mikecweb]

You also need to think about ground transportation logistics. Obviously if you're a feeder, brown or purple will pick it up. Anything else you got courier companies to deal with.

 

[FriendlySkies]

Off subject but, several pilots have said you wouldn't see them behind the PC-12 at night or in IMC. All have been flying King Airs, and every single pilot will fight you if you try to take away their Pilatus now! Funny, right?

 

[z987k]

Off subject but, several pilots have said you wouldn't see them behind the PC-12 at night or in IMC. All have been flying King Airs, and every single pilot will fight you if you try to take away their Pilatus now! Funny, right?

Well good. Has to be someone to fly the things.
Lets be honest though. Single engine airplanes are not for mission critical application IF safety is ACTUALLY of the utmost importance.

 

[skydisaster]

Also, IMO, you're going to have a hard time finding a whole lot of pilots willing to fly a pc-12 imc and night. It's a fine airplane, just like the 208, but when it really comes down to it, if the pt6 was really that reliable, you wouldn't do oei in king airs and cheyene's etc. If I'm flying night in night out through the , give me 2 or keep your freight on the ground.

I strongly disagree. PC12's aren't in much freight use yet because there is enough passenger demand to keep the prices propped up. It has nothing to do with how many engines are on the airplane. The average freight pilot is only going to complain about 1 engine if they are trying to build multi-turbine time to move on to somewhere else. You are statistically much more likely to have an engine failure resulting in an off airport landing in a Navajo than you are in a PC12.

 

[z987k]

I strongly disagree. PC12's aren't in much freight use yet because there is enough passenger demand to keep the prices propped up. It has nothing to do with how many engines are on the airplane. The average freight pilot is only going to complain about 1 engine if they are trying to build multi-turbine time to move on to somewhere else. You are statistically much more likely to have an engine failure resulting in an off airport landing in a Navajo than you are in a PC12.

Now you're comparing apples to oranges. A pc-12 does not replace a navajo. It's comparable to a king air in cabin size, weight and mission application.
Also, a navajo does actually fly on one engine despite it being certified pt 23. The pc-12 only glides on 0.
The pc-12 is also a relatively new airplane. Let's see how it's doing in 40 years when we get some of them with hours on them, and enough time for those statistics to catch up. Mean time between failure is what it is... and eventually a pc-12 will come down due to engine failure... at night, in unfavorable terrain and everyone's going to die when the king air would have made it home.
Further if the pc-12 was so reliable, why doesn't it have an exemption for gliding distance from shore? 135.183. There's a lot of approaches, missed, hold etc on both costs that the pc-12 can't even legally use under 135 with pax.

Now, all that said... I would fly one, but not with LIFR prevailing. It get's treated like a C210 with de-ice