Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Cargo
AEI launches CRJ 100/200 freight conversions >

AEI launches CRJ 100/200 freight conversions

Search

Notices
Cargo Part 121 cargo airlines

AEI launches CRJ 100/200 freight conversions

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 02-28-2013, 09:33 PM
  #11  
Line Holder
 
Et tu Bluto's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2012
Position: A320 FO
Posts: 63
Default

Originally Posted by NCR757dxr
So does this now mean a possible Federal Express Express
From Wikipedia:
The CL-610 Challenger E was to have been a stretched version for use as a cargo aircraft by Federal Express, or alternatively, as a passenger aircraft with seating for 24 passengers.[14] Federal Express placed orders for 25 CL-610s, but these orders were canceled after the passage of air cargo deregulation in the U.S. in 1977.[15] Development was halted by Canadair in 1981 without any having been built. A few years later, a new project would develop the Canadair Regional Jet based on a stretched Challenger design.
Et tu Bluto is offline  
Old 03-01-2013, 03:36 AM
  #12  
Line Holder
 
PDK1011's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2013
Posts: 25
Default

What's the cycle/hours limit on the CRJ? I'm guessing 100 and 200's from the early 90's must be worn out.
PDK1011 is offline  
Old 03-01-2013, 10:23 AM
  #13  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Oct 2011
Posts: 383
Default

The beginning of the end...
surfnski is offline  
Old 03-01-2013, 03:31 PM
  #14  
Gets Weekends Off
 
sandlapper223's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: More Drag
Posts: 447
Default

I'm guessing with CRJ slaughter at the passenger airlines, there will be plenty of em laying around cheap. 53,250 MRTOW.

Oh, and with 47,000lb MLW, and avg. 3,500lb per hour fuel burn do the math on how long the legs on this contraption will need to be. Draw a 2hr ring around MEM and that's the minimum range fully loaded (no alternate).

Shorter routes with less payload.

Last edited by sandlapper223; 03-01-2013 at 03:38 PM. Reason: Added stuff
sandlapper223 is offline  
Old 03-02-2013, 10:41 AM
  #15  
New Hire
 
Joined APC: Sep 2010
Posts: 9
Default

The ATR 72 burn 1500lb of fuel per hour and has a bigger volume & weight capacity than a CRJ200, so financially way much cheaper.

The only way FDX will switch, it is due to the ATR reliability & maintenance issues and the fact it can not use cans or palettes ( It take a lot of peoples & time to load or unload, one box at a time...about 1hr per A/C).
skysign is offline  
Old 03-02-2013, 11:30 AM
  #16  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Default

Originally Posted by skysign
The ATR 72 burn 1500lb of fuel per hour and has a bigger volume & weight capacity than a CRJ200, so financially way much cheaper.

The only way FDX will switch, it is due to the ATR reliability & maintenance issues and the fact it can not use cans or palettes ( It take a lot of peoples & time to load or unload, one box at a time...about 1hr per A/C).
Something to factor in, all those goodies that allow you to use palettes add weight. Most large cargo acft volume out before they gross out. I suspect the ATR weighs out before it volumes out. Or at least paying to fly all those rollers and palettes between SHV and AFW may not make sense. The CRJ may be similar. There is a reason that an ATR does not use pallets or have rollers otherwise Fred would install them.
FDXLAG is offline  
Old 03-02-2013, 01:45 PM
  #17  
New Hire
 
Joined APC: Sep 2010
Posts: 9
Default

Actually even the ATR, weights out before it volumes out with FDX cargo.
The F27 was able to carry palettes. But the ATR has a weak floor load and the modification was view as too expensive .
skysign is offline  
Old 03-04-2013, 06:16 PM
  #18  
Gets Weekends Off
 
501D22G's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2011
Posts: 134
Default

Originally Posted by FDXLAG
You are correct.

The Company’s revenue flights (including Company revenue charter
flights), conducted with aircraft owned, leased, or operated within
the domestic or international operations described below, conducted
with aircraft over 60,000 lbs. MTOGW, shall be flown only by pilots
whose names appear on the Federal Express Master Seniority List in
accordance with the terms of the Agreement.
While you would like to think that this is the case, sadly it is not. Currently Fedex is arranging to exceed the 60k number.

Protect your scope.
501D22G is offline  
Old 03-04-2013, 06:30 PM
  #19  
Gets Weekends Off
 
MaydayMark's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: MD-11 Captain
Posts: 4,304
Default

Originally Posted by 501D22G
While you would like to think that this is the case, sadly it is not. Currently Fedex is arranging to exceed the 60k number.

Protect your scope.
We'd have to get AT LEAST a 3% COLA to get us to agree to a scope change like that
MaydayMark is offline  
Old 03-04-2013, 07:44 PM
  #20  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Natca's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 579
Default

So who is the Launch customer or is there one?
I wonder if this is a metroliner type focused product. Or even out to replace some of the older cargo lears?..
Natca is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
jackace
SkyWest
66
03-21-2012 04:15 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices