Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Transportation

Amazon Makes First Aircraft Purchase to Expand Cargo Network (bloomberg.com) 38

Posted by msmash from the stranger-things dept.
Amazon.com is buying 11 used Boeing 767-300 planes, the first time the online retail giant has purchased, rather than leased, aircraft for its fast-growing air cargo operation. From a report: The company on Tuesday said it was buying seven aircraft from Delta Air Lines and four from WestJet Airlines. The WestJet aircraft are currently being converted from passenger to cargo use and will join Amazon's fleet this year. The Delta jets will start flying routes in 2022. By the end of next year, Amazon expects to have more than 85 planes in service, a spokesperson said. Seattle-based Amazon has rapidly expanded its air cargo operations in recent years, part of an effort to speed up delivery of packages to customers and supplement capacity from such carriers as United Parcel Service.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Amazon Makes First Aircraft Purchase to Expand Cargo Network More

Amazon Makes First Aircraft Purchase to Expand Cargo Network

Comments Filter:

  • I can see a future where they're making autonomous UAVs to protect their production facilities and doing some side-missions for Uncle Sam.

  • I heard there're some deals on super jumbos. Wasn't the 747 originally designed as a cargo plane? It seems like the ones that have been retired lately would make great additions to our prime-smiling overloards airforce.
    And though the a380 isn't designed for cargo, I'm sure Jeff could find some use for the relatively new double-decker airbuses that have been retired and could be bought for pocket change.

    • Four engines is inefficient (Score:4, Insightful)

      by raymorris ( 2726007 ) on Tuesday January 05, 2021 @02:22PM (#60900184) Journal

      Right now you can get any similar plane pretty cheap because the airlines are in bad shape.

      Quad engine airliners were developed for the purpose of flying across the Atlantic safely despite an engine failure. Twin engine planes can now do that. Being designed for intercontinental routes, the four-engine planes are overall designed for range. I think the 747 has about twice the range of the 767, compromising other stats for longer range. Amazon doesn't need that.

      Four engines is more costly than two. Four smaller engines are less efficient than two larger because power is determined partially by turbine diameter.

      So a four-engine plane really isn't something most companies want to buy anymore. They are more costly than twins, and the twin can cross the Atlantic if you want it to.

      • Being aware of all those points, I was really perplexed when one time I had a 100 mile flight over nothing but corn fields, and the plane at the gate was one of these [wikipedia.org]. I had never heard of that model before that day. It sure seems like an oddity to me.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

          Being aware of all those points, I was really perplexed when one time I had a 100 mile flight over nothing but corn fields, and the plane at the gate was one of these. I had never heard of that model before that day. It sure seems like an oddity to me.

          Principally because the engines are quieter [wikipedia.org] than those on a twin. Many airports have time-noise restrictions.

        • I posted a BAe 146 comment on another thread recently. Regional carriers in the US used these, especially for short field and noise abatement (notably John Wayne / Orange County, CA) situations. I have not seen one in years, and suspect that operating costs were eventually not competitive. It had so much flap and slat that people not accustomed to the 146 would look at the wing near landing and wonder if it was falling apart.

      • I just realized I didn't say this as clearly as I could have.
        The power produced by a turbine (or prop) has the turbine AREA as one term of the formula.

          Larger is better because you get more area from one engine with radius 2 than with two engines of radius 1.
         

      • Indeed. Check on Amazon: the 737 MAX is on sale!

    • I heard there're some deals on super jumbos. Wasn't the 747 originally designed as a cargo plane?

      The 747 was designed to be either cargo or passenger, not specific to either. It is the cockpit on the upper level that makes the cargo version special since the whole front swings up as a giant door.

    • There are also some good deals on 737-MAX.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by schwit1 ( 797399 )

      The A380 was never designed to carry cargo. The 747 was originally designed thinking it would primarily be a cargo carrier once SSTs became plentiful. The A380s also have runway weight restrictions plus its size won't permit it into most US airports.

      • There was an A380F variant designed and some parts built before the model was cancelled - both UPS and Fedex purchased aircraft before it was later cancelled as Airbus focused on the passenger variants production issues.

        The A380F was to have upper and lower deck cargo doors, reinforced decks and other modifications.

  • The four from WestJet would be the ones that were 25 years old when WestJet got them from Qantas in 2014. They spent a lot of time in the shop for maintenance.

    Maybe Amazon has a source of ... next-day parts?

    • Cargo aircraft doesn't fly much hence the cargo companies prefer to buy old and cheap airplanes. Fedex still uses several DC-10 built in the 1970s.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by cusco ( 717999 )

      Well, they fly into Boeing Field in Seattle, so parts should be available.

  • They need to invest in floating warehouses that the aircraft can land on. They can become a tax-free company if they move to international waters.

    • Not even Amazon has the kind of money needed to make an aircraft carrier that can handle a 767.

      • It doesn't have to go anywhere, just float around.

        • It doesn't have to go anywhere, just float around.

          It will need to move out of the path of hurricanes.

          Hurricane tracks can't be predicted with accuracy, so a speed of about 15 knots is necessary to respond to updates in the track predictions.

          Making it movable will be cheaper than making it robust enough to withstand a Cat-5.

          But it is all silly. To avoid domicile taxes, you don't have to move your operations offshore. Just your HQ. For that, you just need a filing cabinet in the Cayman Islands.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Hadlock ( 143607 )

        At least one floating runway has been constructed and tested, in Japan, though it's not currently in use. Barges are actually remarkably cheap when it comes to boats.

    • You need at least a 6300 foot runway. That would be a LARGE vessel.
  • I take it for granted that Amazon knows what they are doing, but I am a little surprised they use air transport. That is expensive, and they don't sell many perishables (to me at least?) It seems like having a warehouse within a day of everywhere in CONUS should work, since they have enough customers do support it.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by cusco ( 717999 )

      What Amazon started out doing was replacing the capacity they lost when they cut ties to Fed Ex. Now they've not only replaced all of that lost capacity but have (IIRC) more than doubled what they lost while saving money compared to Fed Ex's prices.

      Prime Air has several uses, one being just to move inventory around the country from where there's a surplus of an item to where there's a shortage. They also move 2-Day Delivery packages among their 20 North America hubs and are expanding to the EU now. With

  • people should be able to choose "slow" delivery (Score:3, Interesting)

    by wtvrtje ( 6971212 ) on Tuesday January 05, 2021 @02:49PM (#60900282)
    If people could choose "slow" surface delivery in stead of fast, fast, overnight delivery that would save a lot of CO2 emissions

    • Re:people should be able to choose "slow" delivery (Score:5, Informative)

      by Waffle Iron ( 339739 ) on Tuesday January 05, 2021 @03:28PM (#60900446)

      If people could choose "slow" surface delivery in stead of fast, fast, overnight delivery that would save a lot of CO2 emissions

      You can. The Amazon Prime checkout usually offers "free no-rush delivery", often with something like a bonus voucher for $1.00 of digital purchases.

      However, for the standard free two-day deliveries, most of the stuff I've tracked comes from one of their warehouses within 200 miles of my house, and goes by ground anyway. I figure for a one-off purchase, using their communal trucks creates less CO2 emissions than me driving all the way out to a big box store.

    • They have done that for a long time, you just pick deliver on your amazon day, whatever day of the week that is. Multiple orders are combined and made in one single delivery. Or some items offer no rush, typically 5-7 days vs 1-3 days for normal. And aircraft get fairly good mileage, 0.16 mpg isn't bad for 550mph with over 100,000lbs of cargo.
      • I don't remember a 'surface' delivery option, that is something different from combining deliveries. The energy needed to transport something by air compared by surface is terrible.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by cusco ( 717999 )

      They're building out their own delivery capacity at an incredible rate, they've entirely replaced Fed Ex and much of the UPS delivery system already.

    • UPS is too old and slow with alot of overhead. They don't need a huge ground fleet that takes 5-7 days to move packages from coast to coast or want to deliver outside packages from ebay and other competitors. Amazon is much leaner, no unions like ups and uses the more modern equipment.
  • Bezos could buy it and turn it into his ping-pong room with his spare change. Amazon has to be stopped.
    • You're either drastically underestimating Facebook's value, or overestimating Bezos' net worth. Facebook has a market cap of $770bn.
  • Why wouldn't they buy them used? I'm sure some are available to sell for cheap ... just strip the seats.

    • It takes more than that to be able to fly them, least of which is a cargo door; there is no conversion program yet for the max.

      The 767’s are perfect for Amazon, as they are inexpensive, there is an established conversion program that is quite efficient, and the higher operating costs don’t really matter when you are only running them 6-8 hours a day compared to airline service of 12-16 hours.

    • They aren't that cheap. You can get a 737-9 for ~40 millions, but an old 767 for 12 millions or so.

Slashdot Top Deals

The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its credibility. And vice versa.

Close