Jump to content


Icon Important Announcement!

New registrations require administration validation. This may delay registration approvals.


Photo

MASkargo eyes bigger freighters next year


  • Please log in to reply
61 replies to this topic

#21 Isaac

Isaac
  • Platinum Member
  • 3,050 posts

Posted 23 October 2009 - 05:29 PM

Mas Kargo won’t be acquiring any MD-11 as fuel burn is uneconomical; a reason Transmile is uncompetitive.

But then, LH seems to be doing just fine with theirs. As a matter of fact, its cargo arm operates only MD-11F. There are 19 of them though 6 have been temporary grounded because of the uncertain economy.

#22 flee

flee
  • Platinum Member
  • 10,454 posts

Posted 23 October 2009 - 07:33 PM

Fuel burn is only one part of total operating costs. If the MD-11's cost peanuts to buy, then higher fuel burn will only hurt if the plane flies a lot of the time. Cargo planes tend to have much longer turnaround times compared to civil airliners.

#23 Eugene Koh

Eugene Koh
  • Silver Member
  • 259 posts

Posted 26 October 2009 - 05:28 AM

Obtained from Flight Int'l...

http://www.flightglo...freighters.html

Also, found from Flight Int'l that MASKargo joint venture with Hainan Airlines...

http://www.flightglo...ines-group.html


On the earlier note, if MAS would to consider B747-200F in their search, why not just renew their contract. A330F or B747-400F
would make more sense. Also, what happen to the sole A300F?

#24 Sri Ramani K.

Sri Ramani K.
  • Platinum Member
  • 1,400 posts

Posted 18 August 2011 - 10:43 AM

Posted Image

http://www.airliners...5b8db67fc96de0a

#25 Ikman Ikreza

Ikman Ikreza
  • Platinum Member
  • 2,046 posts

Posted 18 August 2011 - 10:50 AM

It seem rego 9M-MUA for MASkargo A330F.

#26 Geoff R.

Geoff R.
  • Gold Member
  • 567 posts

Posted 18 August 2011 - 02:19 PM

Looks nice but not sure all that white will look so good after a few months in service.

Anyone know the delivery schedule for the rest of the MASkargo aircraft?

Geoff

#27 Mohd Suhaimi Fariz

Mohd Suhaimi Fariz
  • Platinum Member
  • 2,397 posts

Posted 18 August 2011 - 02:46 PM

Looks nice but not sure all that white will look so good after a few months in service.

Anyone know the delivery schedule for the rest of the MASkargo aircraft?

Geoff


The 2nd one is tentatively scheduled for December, and the other two next year.

#28 Mike P

Mike P
  • Platinum Member
  • 1,606 posts

Posted 18 August 2011 - 03:25 PM

White colour may be good. Not only it could save the cost of painting but also it's lighter and therefore burn lesser fuel. An A332 freighter? I guess only for those really short haul destinations.

Edited by Mike P, 18 August 2011 - 03:28 PM.


#29 flee

flee
  • Platinum Member
  • 10,454 posts

Posted 18 August 2011 - 03:29 PM

White colour may be good. Not only it could save the cost of painting but also it's lighter and therefore burn lesser fuel. An A332 freighter? I guess only for those really short haul destinations.

If MH really needs B737 freighters, it would be cheaper to convert some of the old B734s.

#30 Tamizi Hj Tamby

Tamizi Hj Tamby
  • Platinum Member
  • 5,673 posts

Posted 18 August 2011 - 04:04 PM

Looks good; Flee do have a point,the 734s can be converted into 734Fs.

#31 Mohd Suhaimi Fariz

Mohd Suhaimi Fariz
  • Platinum Member
  • 2,397 posts

Posted 18 August 2011 - 06:56 PM

If MH really needs B737 freighters, it would be cheaper to convert some of the old B734s.


The A332F are for the intra-Asian region. There's demand in cargo, but not enough to warrant a 747.

As for 737F, they did have the 733F back in the 1990s.

Posted Image

Boeing 737-3H6(F)

Edited by Mohd Suhaimi Fariz, 18 August 2011 - 06:58 PM.


#32 Johan Z

Johan Z
  • Platinum Member
  • 1,685 posts

Posted 18 August 2011 - 07:23 PM

I think a 747 wears it best.


Posted Image

#33 Mike P

Mike P
  • Platinum Member
  • 1,606 posts

Posted 18 August 2011 - 07:24 PM

I suppose the reason of not using the old aircraft is because of the fuel burn is much higher.

#34 flee

flee
  • Platinum Member
  • 10,454 posts

Posted 18 August 2011 - 08:50 PM

I suppose the reason of not using the old aircraft is because of the fuel burn is much higher.

It is the TCO that matters - capital costs plus operating costs. If MH buys new planes, they need to be financed and they have to make payments for them each month in addition to the fuel costs. Most airlines state that fuel costs make up about 30-40% of the total costs.

MH can buy the B734s cheaply off PMB and the cost of conversion is probably not going to be as much as buying a new aircraft. That is why cargo carriers like FedEx have a huge fleet of ancient planes - TCO is still lower than new ones. Whatever new planes they have ordered will probably be operated for a long, long time to make the economics work.

#35 BC Tam

BC Tam
  • Platinum Member
  • 7,089 posts

Posted 18 August 2011 - 09:47 PM

MH can buy the B734s cheaply off PMB and the cost of conversion is probably not going to be as much as buying a new aircraft. That is why cargo carriers like FedEx have a huge fleet of ancient planes - TCO is still lower than new ones

Which then begs the question as to why MH could not have roped in those soon to be retired 734/330/744, in any combination, for her cargo operations, instead of opting for the new 332F's and leased in birds :)
Lack of inter-departmental coordination perhaps ? :pardon:

#36 muhammad safril

muhammad safril
  • Members
  • 13 posts

Posted 18 August 2011 - 09:53 PM

bigger than 747?? haha... try An225-Mriya....

#37 Mohd Suhaimi Fariz

Mohd Suhaimi Fariz
  • Platinum Member
  • 2,397 posts

Posted 18 August 2011 - 11:42 PM

Which then begs the question as to why MH could not have roped in those soon to be retired 734/330/744, in any combination, for her cargo operations, instead of opting for the new 332F's and leased in birds :)
Lack of inter-departmental coordination perhaps ? :pardon:


1. There's no cargo conversion program for the A330. Besides, the passenger version of the A330 makes a lousy cargo plane since on the ground the plane is not level due to the short nose landing gear, which is why the A332F had that bulge.
2. They need the capacity afforded to them by the A332F for intra-Asian flights where demand is high but not high enough to warrant a 744F flight. It's a waste of resources to send 2 734BCF to do a job that one A332F can do.
3. 744BCFs could replace the leased 742s, but if it costs less to lease 744Fs (or even 777F - Southern Air's contract with TG for 777F has ended), might as well lease them. Though I think Southern Air's days are numbered.

#38 BC Tam

BC Tam
  • Platinum Member
  • 7,089 posts

Posted 19 August 2011 - 08:02 AM

Thanks for clarifying :drinks:
Actually, is there a 734 freighter conversion ?

#39 Mohd Suhaimi Fariz

Mohd Suhaimi Fariz
  • Platinum Member
  • 2,397 posts

Posted 19 August 2011 - 09:49 AM

Thanks for clarifying :drinks:
Actually, is there a 734 freighter conversion ?


Yes, there is a 734 freighter conversion program.

#40 Mike P

Mike P
  • Platinum Member
  • 1,606 posts

Posted 19 August 2011 - 10:08 AM

It is the TCO that matters - capital costs plus operating costs. If MH buys new planes, they need to be financed and they have to make payments for them each month in addition to the fuel costs. Most airlines state that fuel costs make up about 30-40% of the total costs.

MH can buy the B734s cheaply off PMB and the cost of conversion is probably not going to be as much as buying a new aircraft. That is why cargo carriers like FedEx have a huge fleet of ancient planes - TCO is still lower than new ones. Whatever new planes they have ordered will probably be operated for a long, long time to make the economics work.


Good for short terms but may not good for long terms. Judging at MH's current finance status, probably option one is better.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users