Amazon Expands Air Cargo Fleet With 15 More Planes, Will Have 70 Planes By 2021 (techcrunch.com) 58
Amazon announced this morning the expansion of its own air delivery network, Amazon Air. "The retailer says it's leasing an additional 15 Boeing 737-800 cargo aircraft from partner GE Capital Aviation Services (GECAS)," reports TechCrunch. "These will join the five Boeing 737-800's already leased from GECAS, announced earlier this year. The aircraft will fly out of more than 20 U.S. air gateways in the Amazon Air network." From the report: In addition, Amazon says it will open more air facilities in 2019, including at Fort Worth Alliance Airport, Wilmington Air Park and Chicago Rockford International Airport. Meanwhile, the main Air Hub at the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport will open in 2021. The Amazon Air network, then called Prime Air, was first launched in 2016, with the goal of speeding up Amazon's e-commerce deliveries, particularly for its Prime members. But over the years, the competition with partners-slash-rivals like FedEx have heated up -- and not only on air cargo, but also in newer areas like ground delivery robots and drones.
At the end of last year, Amazon announced more aircraft additions for Amazon Air, bumping the network from 40 planes to 50. Today, it says it's on track to reach 70 planes by 2021, thanks to this new expansion. The company also claims to have created thousands of U.S. jobs thanks to Amazon's investment of millions into its air network.
At the end of last year, Amazon announced more aircraft additions for Amazon Air, bumping the network from 40 planes to 50. Today, it says it's on track to reach 70 planes by 2021, thanks to this new expansion. The company also claims to have created thousands of U.S. jobs thanks to Amazon's investment of millions into its air network.
Re: (Score:3)
*.... Total scam; item not as described.
Verified Purchase
I would give this product zero stars if I could.
The description and photo clearly show a 737-800 in new condition. However, what I received was obviously a used 737-MAX. I can tell because it still has the bigger engines attached that make this model aerodynamically unstable. I've attached photos showing the engines, and the stubs where they used a hacksaw to cut off the "Angle of Attack" sensors to try to hide the problems with this aircraft.
Note tha
Re: (Score:3)
Re:How long before we have Amazon Travel (Score:5, Funny)
Cargo gets 100% of the space it needs, not like Ryanair passengers.
Re: (Score:1)
As soon as Amazon realizes that a slave market still exists in Africa and the Middle East.
Re: (Score:2)
.. for humans, not just parcels?
If a two day trip ends up taking 2 weeks like most prime deliveries- I don't want to ship myself anywhere with Amazon Travel.
Re: (Score:2)
You do understand that the MAX is in the process of being re-certified by the FAA's process and not Boeing's internal one right? You also should understand that there is nothing inherently wrong with the MAX, that the "fix" for the issue amounts to not much more than a small software change, changes to maintenance documentation and some additional pilot training.
The MAX will return to service before fall is over and it will have been gone through a total recertification review, down to the last bolt. At
Re: (Score:2)
I DO get it, better than you apparently do..
The issue that started all this was the larger engine's placement moving the lift vector forward at high angles of attack resulting in a lowering of the control pressure required to put the aircraft into a stall. I.E. As the aircraft approached a stall, the control pressures required to increase the angle of attack decreased because the lift vector shifted forward due to the lift created by the larger engine which was pushed forward. This is not intuitive for pil
Re: (Score:2)
There is something inherently wrong with the max, its basically antiquated design which necessitates systems which fly the plane for you, and which get the details wrong. Think about the flying horror they've created for just a moment. If one sensor fails frequently, which seems to be the case, then cross-checking only one more sensor is not really enough, is it? But that's much of the fix.
Even accepting that as a given, the problems inherent to the max aren't even the most serious problem. The real problem
Re: (Score:2)
You put the nose in a little more than a regular 737.
The difference was sufficient that it would have required more training. Except, whoops! Apparently they needed more training anyway, in case of MCAS failure — which, as it turned out, was embarrassingly likely. So I understand perfectly what the situation actually is, kthx.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not accurate to say there's something "inherently wrong" with the max. I'd give you a pass if you said there was something "inherently wrong" with the MCAS, but even then it's not irreperable. This distinction is what the other AC was trying to illustrate.
I'm far from being alone in the opinion that they should be producing a new airframe rather than depending on hacks to the old one.
Jobs "Created", Nope. (Score:3, Interesting)
I seriously doubt that Amazon has created a single new job due to their expanding fleet of planes. Every job they "create" by bringing it inside the Amazon tent will be offset by a job lost elsewhere (like Fedex).
I'm a Prime member & appreciate most of the services rendered but that doesn't mean that I swallow it when they lie by omission on the amount of jobs they "create".
Sad to see that my post will be preceded by the outright trollery I saw in the preceding posts. /. was so much better/intelligent before...
Re: (Score:3)
The problem Amazon created is a lot of local stores no longer hold the same verity of products. Because people are getting so use to ordering online, that the retail stores just holds their top sellers and the other stuff is only available online. I wanted some T-Track strips for my workshop. I had to order them online, as the big box stores and the local hardware stores didn't have them. So because I had to order online, it took days for me to get something, that I could had picked up at a store, and been
Re: (Score:3)
Most Logistic partners like FedEx and UPS have growth plans for their business that isn't reliant to Amazon. But for every plane Amazon buys doesn't mean one less plane that the logistic companies use. As they have other customers that needs products shipped as well. While Amazon is the Giant company, FedEx and UPS and the like focus a lot on smaller businesses. So the Million small businesses shipping product every day still need FedEx and UPS to ship their products.
Amazon is huge, so without their pack
it's the Productivity, stoopid (Score:3)
When productivity increase it means you just made more valuable things with less expensively. Regardless of whether you keep the profit or you lower the price and let the consumers get it, the bottom line is there's now more for you or the consumers to spend on other things. Now it's true the middlemen you cut out also would have spent their earnings as well. But you just freed up their resources to be applied to other uses.
It's a net productivity increase if the overall cost declines or the overall sh
Re: (Score:2)
That's where your logic fails. If it's just a substitution, Amazon can gain the business & profit that FedEx / UPS loses from the substitution, so Amazon has every incentive to become an even greater behemoth than they've already become.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a net productivity increase if the overall cost declines or the overall shipping capacity increases at a lower shipping cost. It's not a net productivity increase if it's just a substitution. However if it were just a substitution there isn't a lot of rationale for amazon to enter the shipping bussiness rather than outsource it. So they must see it as such. So if they can increase productivity this way and free up less productive resources for other uses it's a net gain for the economy.
Vertical integration is typically to give yourself preferential treatment you'd not be able to buy on the open market, often to the detriment of the market as a whole. Amazon the shop will be pushing you to use Amazon the shipping not because it's necessarily better but because they can give themselves business. Plus you get absolute priority on the things you ship yourself, creating a service that a competitor can't easily buy from Fedex/UPS. It's a classic trick to leverage your market power in one market
Re: (Score:2)
Every job they "create" by bringing it inside the Amazon tent will be offset by a job lost elsewhere (like Fedex).
The amount of parcels moved around the world has not decreased once in the past 10 years. It is still very much a growth market and I have no doubt that not a single Fedex (or other) job was lost as a result of Amazon insourcing some of it's air transport.
Re: The white flying elephant in the room emits C (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Let me know when they swear off flying and air shipped goods themselves.
Lead by example, idiots.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
99% of what you can buy on Amazon would easily fit in a 737
Re: (Score:2)
99% of what you can buy on Amazon would easily fit in a 737
I usually buy 747s on Amazon- they don't usually fit on a 737.
Re: (Score:2)
Replacing Fed-X I guess (Score:2)
Given Fed-X dumped them last month, I guess they have no choice but to fly their own fleet in an effort to make up what Fed-X won't do for them now. And yes, make no mistake, it was Fed-X who refused to continue doing business with Amazon.
I wonder why they picked 737's though? Cessna Citations seem to be better suited to cargo service. They are much more efficient, only require a single pilot to fly, can use much shorter runways and thus much lower cost and greater flexibility. They must have a deal with
Re: (Score:2)
Probably because a 737 freighter is way larger, with higher MTOW and cargo volume. I can't find many specifics but this one modification allows up to 24 tons or 12 pallets of cargo.
http://www.b737.org.uk/737-800... [b737.org.uk]
I don't even know if you could fit one pallet in the Cessna.