17

I was reading recently that Northwest Airlines was the last American passenger carrier to operate dedicated Cargo aircraft. Why do none of the large US airlines operate dedicated cargo flights anymore? This seems to be common among international Airlines (Lufthansa, China Airlines, Qatar Airways, EVA, etc).

Presumably UPS and Fedex's extensive networks have something to do with it? I'm surprised that none of them find it economical, however.

Community
  • 1
zymhan
  • 2,238
  • 1
  • 12
  • 33

3 Answers3

23

Alaska Airlines Cargo Freighter

Alaska Airlines, Hawaiian Airlines still have dedicated freighters.

American, Delta, Southwest and United all have thriving cargo shipping operations, but as far as I can tell, no longer have freighters.

Alaska used to run 737 Combi to ship cargo and passengers in the main cabin on their “Milk Run” up the Alaskan panhandle. They now have dedicated freighters to handle the cargo.

Good luck shipping your parcel.

Hawaiian Air Cargo

Mad Physicist
  • 109
  • 5
gwally
  • 2,374
  • 1
  • 12
  • 17
  • 3
    The question is about cargo-only aircraft, not belly cargo operations. Alaska Airlines is a special case, they only service Alaskan routes with their 737F. Besides, the general public can't ship belly cargo post 9/11, you must be TSA-approved. – user71659 Feb 28 '19 at 23:26
  • 12
    @user71659 And the answer explicitly says that Alaskan has cargo-only aircraft. You can claim that they're a special case but the question claims that no US passenger airline operates cargo-only flights and this answer rebuts that claim. – David Richerby Feb 28 '19 at 23:49
  • 1
    @DavidRicherby The real answer to the question is the economics of cargo compared to the geography of North America (you have to have a network). Alaska is a special case. The fact that combi/narrowbody cargo in Alaska is profitable is inapplicable to the lower 48. – user71659 Feb 28 '19 at 23:52
  • 11
    @user71659 So what? Alaska is still part of the USA. Alaskan is still an American carrier. None of what you're saying invalidates the answer in any way. – David Richerby Feb 28 '19 at 23:55
  • 1
    Alaska and Hawaiian still have dedicated freighters. American does not have one, neither does Southwest or United . I can't tell if Delta still has freighters. – gwally Mar 01 '19 at 02:49
  • 4
    @user71659 "the real answer" has been covered by others. This supplemental answer provides good information which is completely on-topic and on-point. – user33375 Mar 01 '19 at 02:58
  • @user33375 No it doesn't. It would be on-point if it said "While economics of mixed freight airlines on the mainland are uneconomic, the unique geography of Hawaii and Alaska creates demand for specialized operators". But it doesn't. No context. Alaska didn't even want to get the 737F, their combi was forced out of service due to FAA fuel tank interting requirements. – user71659 Mar 01 '19 at 05:19
  • 2
    I would say that Hawaiian and Alaskan certainly count, and I had not considered looking them up when I originally thought of the question. Which is silly given I posted an answer about the Alaskan 737 Combis a few days ago :facepalm: – zymhan Mar 01 '19 at 14:17
  • 3
    This answer wins because Alaskan flies cross-country (and cross-continent) and does indeed have dedicated 737-700 Freighters. But the other answers still provide a lot of valuable context as to why the largest US passenger airlines stopped operating dedicated cargo flights. – zymhan Mar 01 '19 at 16:10
  • 5
    @user71659 "Your premise is wrong, X is not true" is a perfectly accurate answer to "why X?" So is "X is not true technically; the reason why it is mostly true is Y". So this answer would be improved by talking about why it is mostly true, but it remains an on-topic answer. – Yakk Mar 01 '19 at 18:58
  • @zymhan While they fly cross-country, their freighters do not. Unless chartered, the freighters only fly within Alaska and to Seattle. That's my whole point that Alaska and Hawaii are special cases. Alaskan Airlines is really two different airlines in one: an airline serving rural Alaska, and a LCC serving the mainland. – user71659 Mar 01 '19 at 20:09
20

A lot of airlines (USA flagged or not) still ship cargo in the hold along with passengers baggage, for some airlines its a high dollar business. Carriers like UPS, FedEx, etc, have surely put a dent in the plane-full-o-cargo market but for the airlines it actually helps to mitigate risk. If you carry both cargo and passengers you can be assured of a more stable revenue stream across the board. An airline can mitigate a lull in travel or cargo movement by also generating income from the other stream.

There is also a lot of differing logistics in moving cargo that a passenger airline may not want to deal with. UPS and FedEx also maintain truck fleets to deal with the package once it gets to an airport. This end to end business model is attractive to consumers. An airline, who may have the space on the plane but not the trucks, can't offer such service and for a given customer this may make or break the deal.

Dave
  • 101,073
  • 5
  • 220
  • 364
  • 1
    That makes sense, I noticed that Delta still lets you arrange cargo shipments on their scheduled passenger flights. It makes sense to have both in the same plane so you can make money from two different sources. – zymhan Feb 28 '19 at 19:46
  • 1
    You'd also need warehouses/processing facilities for large-scale cargo operations, in order to get things on the right plane (and packed efficiently), then transferred to trucks, and have every package tracked through the process. – jamesqf Feb 28 '19 at 20:00
  • 6
    In the US? Because "trucks", +1, in a country with a federally maintained interstate highway system. – Mazura Mar 01 '19 at 00:59
  • 2
    @Mazura Trucks are mostly last-mile haulage. The privately-maintained railroad system is the more direct competitor to air freight. – chrylis -cautiouslyoptimistic- Mar 01 '19 at 14:26
  • @chrylis: Rail isn't really a competitor to air freight. Rail ships heavy, often bulk materials at low cost; air ships high-value materials where speed is important. (Imagine shipping grain or bulk chemicals by air :-)) – jamesqf Mar 01 '19 at 17:29
  • 1
    Rail + Ship containerized transportation is a competitor to international air freight (you have 4 options from, for example, Shanghai to Rio de Janeiro (ignoring local haulage: 1: Ship through Panama (cheap / slow), 2: Rail to Europe, Ship across Atlantic (faster, but more expensive than #1, 3: Rail to Europe, Airfreight across Atlantic (still faster, more expensive than #2, includes need to change from ISO Containers to Air Containers), and 4: Air freight from China to Brazil (fastest, most expensive). – Randall Mar 02 '19 at 17:02
12

The cargo operation (dedicated fleet) requires its own logistical and operational apparatus. Unless an airline's cargo subsidiary is large enough to get the required economy of scale, along with decent market conditions, it's not worth the trouble and expense.

According to this article, Lufthansa's cargo operation lost money in 2016 and they were complaining about subsidies to Gulf operators that allow them to undercut airlines like Lufthansa who have marginally profitable cargo divisions.

And there's the rub. A good chunk of cargo operations outside the North America are subsidized (certainly the ones operated by government owned or controlled airlines). In the absence of subsidies, and with a harder focus on making every dollar count, in North America it was found to be more efficient to specialize.

John K
  • 130,987
  • 11
  • 286
  • 467
  • 1
    That makes a lot of sense, a cargo operation would require a lot of additional infrastructure that's not helpful for the passenger side of the house. – zymhan Feb 28 '19 at 19:47
  • 1
    Razor...thin...margins. – J... Feb 28 '19 at 21:33