Ins and outs of air cargo

[FlyMarines09]

Interesting conversations, I'm enjoying this post... Back tracking a little bit... The theoretical company would have started out as a ground courier/specialized transportation service with a good customer base, strong freight forwarder relationships and several government related contracts before moving into the air market... Then, once in the air cargo market, slowly acquiring a small fleet of aircraft. What then, would be a good fleet to start off with when the initial budget is say $500,000 for acquisition... Flying 5-6 routes total perhaps 2-3 times a day around the midwest...?

 

[cmill]

Well, let's just say it's safe until it isn't safe. There comes a point that the floats will buy you some time, but push comes to shove, you're going under, granted those scenarios are off shore in rollers. Also, rivers are a huge caveat. I'd sooner dead stick a float plane into a field than land it in the Mississippi.

 

[cmill]

What then, would be a good fleet to start off with when the initial budget is say $500,000 for acquisition... Flying 5-6 routes total perhaps 2-3 times a day around the midwest...?

A fleet of 210s. There's a reason why FLX is still around. You just can't beat the performance/cost ratio of the centurion.

If you had 6 routes, I would want at least 2 back up planes, so figure on 8 planes. You could get realistically get 8 210's for under 500k and still have plenty of money to gas them up for a while.

 

[z987k]

Well, let's just say it's safe until it isn't safe. There comes a point that the floats will buy you some time, but push comes to shove, you're going under, granted those scenarios are off shore in rollers. Also, rivers are a huge caveat. I'd sooner dead stick a float plane into a field than land it in the Mississippi.

What don't you like about the Mississippi? I did my float rating and have all my float time on that river. Granted... quite a bit upstream.

 

[FlyMarines09]

I was thinking about 210's.... What about a second aircraft type for larger volume freight? Navajo? Cessna 401?

 

[USMCmech]

I was thinking about 210's.... What about a second aircraft type for larger volume freight? Navajo? Cessna 401?

402s (If you can find some decent airframes)

 

[FlyMarines09]

The 402's I've seen just look so junky! I'd have to compare operation costs, payload and speed between 402's and Navajo's...

What governs air carrier's aircraft utilization for different routes?
How does a carrier bid on FedEx and UPS shipments?
Do these companies build a steady client base besides using freight forwarders?
What type of insurance/endorsements do these carriers need to fly legal documents, bank documents, medical supplies/blood, and Hazmat?

Thanks!

 

[cmill]

What don't you like about the Mississippi? I did my float rating and have all my float time on that river. Granted... quite a bit upstream.

It's not so much landing in the Mississippi as it is landing with no control. If you don't have an engine, you're really just long for the ride with no way to dodge cruise liners, barge traffic, oil tankers, or logs the size of red woods. Not to mention the wake that they all put out. We'll occasionally land in the river itself to get to certain boats, but it's usually along the banks. The passes can be just as bad current wise, but you usually don't have the amount if deep draft traffic coming through.

 

[Maurus]

What governs air carrier's aircraft utilization for different routes?
How does a carrier bid on FedEx and UPS shipments?
Do these companies build a steady client base besides using freight forwarders?
What type of insurance/endorsements do these carriers need to fly legal documents, bank documents, medical supplies/blood, and Hazmat?

Aircraft utilization would be based on what the customer needs. UPS has been doing business long enough to know what they need for a run. During the bidding process the companies would submit bids that would accomplish their goals. Sometimes speed is required on a run compared to a lower operating cost. You may see an BE-99 on that run instead of a Caravan. I know they can haul similar weights but the extra 40 knots in a BE-99 could be the deciding factor. On time performance and such would also factor into the decision making for UPS when looking at bids. Other things they look at are the geographical areas. There is a reason why Key Lime and AMF dominate mountainous terrain. Twin engine aircraft are more suitable for such terrain and the weather they produce. I'm not sure I would like being at full capacity in a C208 with a 8000ft+ Density Altitude.

Other questions are getting too in depth for us pilots though. Unfortunately these days there are way too many different government entities that want part of the pie. OSHA (hazmat), FAA, TSA. + insurance. I would pull my hair out trying to start a new company.

 

[SpiraMirabilis]

The 402's I've seen just look so junky! I'd have to compare operation costs, payload and speed between 402's and Navajo's...

What governs air carrier's aircraft utilization for different routes?
How does a carrier bid on FedEx and UPS shipments?
Do these companies build a steady client base besides using freight forwarders?
What type of insurance/endorsements do these carriers need to fly legal documents, bank documents, medical supplies/blood, and Hazmat?

Thanks!

FedEx is more cliquish in their feeders. They very rarely take a run away from one company and give it to another unless it is because of capacity (ie: too much freight for caravans so put an ATR on it, or too light to warrant an ATR so put a caravan on it.) So you end up being a little more secure in your job flying for a fedex feeder than for UPS, which can and will toss your company to save $1.

 

[ppragman]

I don't fly turbines. I have 0 turbine time. I have more single engine piston time than I'd like to admit. I've probably crossed this country in single pistons more times than most. You know what I never did in them? Go over the rockies at night or in IFR. Not safe.
My point is simply this - IF and operator ACTUALLY cares about safety in mission critical environments, they will not fly single engine airplanes. If they deem the loss of life an acceptable risk then safety is not their first concern.
A caveat to that would be something like single engine over water on floats. Lose the engine, you're a boat, you call for help, everyone still goes home. Or single engine VFR in general. Neither of those are the same category as ifr, night mountain flying.

Meh, its as safe as you make it. Done lot's of dicey flying in single engine airplanes in highly (as in more mountainous than the rockies) terrain in marginal weather. While I didn't have denalt to deal with, it wasn't bad. Just gotta pay attention. Also crossed the cascades in the van a couple times - in winner no less with ice! -kind of a non event if you plan, dot your "t's" and cross your eyes. I've got somewhere around 2900hrs of SE out of my 4100+ TT - I'm not ashamed to admit it either, that was the most challenging and rewarding flying I ever did, and given the right conditions and equipment, sure I'd cross the rockies in a single piston at night or in IFR. Gladly. And it can be done safely! (Egads!) You have to have a plan A, B, C, and maybe even a plan D if all those go awry, but in a lot of ways the singles are better to cross the hills with than the twins. If I remember the old adage right, you're half as likely to lose all of your engines in a twin, but twice as likely to lose any one engine. The twin is more complex, and that driftdown altitude might be fairly sketchy in the high country if you're not sporting two turbines. Something to think about.

 

[FlyMarines09]

Thanks for the information. I'm going to include some of the posts in my research and do some more searching around on google. I appreciate everyone's time thus far.

 

[NickH]

There are 130 BE-99's still flying and more than a thousand PC-12s.

I'd rather be over the Cascades at 2x,000 in a PC-12 than at 13,000 in an AMF chieftain! Gliding distance to airports on both sides is better than descending more slowly into terrain and below VOR reception.

 

[FriendlySkies]

Well put... But PT-6's have been around as long as a king air. Glide is terrible, yes. But, will never have to worry about VMC when ya do lose the engine. I dont want anybody to die due to losing an engine just to prove a point.

 

[will_fly_for_bandwith]

As far as chances of failure go, the MTBF of a pt6 is X. So statistically, after X hours in a pc-12/208 you're going to lose an engine, and after X hours in a BE20/99 you're going to lose an engine. The difference is, you have another to take you home.

Not quite.
Why do you think they calculate a MTBF? So you can replace/over hall the engine before it reaches the statistical failure point.
One engine failed has nothing to do with the reliability of your operating engine. You are just a likely to suffer an engine failure on your operating engine as you were with your working one. The difference is now you are running your 'good' engine at 100% or more for an extend period of time.
From a safety perspective if not 1 engine then 2, but why not 3 or 4 engines to be 'Safe'.
Now with that being said would I take a C172 over the great lakes in VMC conditions in December? - No in a Twin... yes....
When trying to determine what is safer the whole single vs multi debate misses the big picture. The number of engines is only 1 part of your risk portfolio. All aspects need be considered for every unique situation and you as the PIC act accordingly (that's why you are PIC).

 

[Maurus]

There are 130 BE-99's still flying and more than a thousand PC-12s.

I'd rather be over the Cascades at 2x,000 in a PC-12 than at 13,000 in an AMF chieftain! Gliding distance to airports on both sides is better than descending more slowly into terrain and below VOR reception.

The altitude bonus in the PC-12 is nice. Problem is that they are still way too expensive for cargo in the US. The airplanes we use are old but they are payed for. Need an additional airframe? Find a cheap one on the market. Last I checked, used PC-12s are still more expensive than new Caravans.

 

[SpiraMirabilis]

I'd much rather fly in a Caravan or Pilatus over the mountains than a twin Cessna whose single engine service ceiling is not much higher than ground level.

 

[Pilotforhire587]

Did some one say in and out... Wheres Derg?

 

[derg]

I'm right here, but scooter2525 is the true fanatic!

 

[Itchy]

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

Unless you like the company and have to pay the mortgage.