71–80 of 204 posts
The sheer size of Amazon is mind boggling. Is there anywhere they've opened their logistics network to other operators yet? Like AWS but for their logistics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where do you get that 133% figure from? you appear to be suggesting that a four-engined aircraft could only tolerate the loss of a single engine, but if that were the case, four-engined aircraft would always have been more vulnerable to loss on account of an engine failure over the ocean than twin-engined ones. The introduction of additional requirements (in terms of stringent maintenance, ancilliary equipment redund…
If the aircraft is required to fly at a certain performance level with one engine out, a 4 engine aircraft must have 4/3x100% of minimum required power when in nominal operating condition, a 2 engine aircraft must have 2/1x100%... I first heard this from a lecture by Henry Pohl (a truly brilliant engineer): https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/aeronautics-and-astronautics/16-...
I remember watching a video from Wendover Production talking about the decline of 747 and A380s mainly due to a lack of guaranteed passengers to fill the plane routes in both directions. Exceptions being some airlines which are able to operate hub and spoke models and where fuel is cheap like the middle east airlines. Wouldn't these types of planes be more suitable for a role in logistics which can benefit the greate…
The A340, A380, 727, 747, and L-1011 existed because of the hub-and-spoke model, and the requirement for a minimum of three engines for transoceanic flights. The 777 was the harbinger of their doom, as it brought ETOPS with it. Somewhat tangentially, there is a (strong) argument that twin-engine aircraft are actually safer than three or four engine aircraft. First, they are at lower risk of having an engine problem (…
The A300 brought ETOPS, quickly followed by the 767.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't "logistics as a service" pretty much what Fulfillment By Amazon is? I could be totally wrong, but based on the past stories I've read about Amazon's negotiations with UPS and their growth of their own delivery network, I'd be surprised if they have much spare logistics capacity to open up to anyone outside the immediate Amazon ecosystem.
> Isn't "logistics as a service" pretty much what Fulfillment By Amazon is? There is a lot of crossover between FBA, and a UPS or FedEx, but it's not 100%. FBA is basically B2C, as opposed to B2B or C2C. Back during the "peak lockdown" of April/May 2020, a little birdie told me about some of the steps that Amazon was taking to give the warehouses and delivery network a break from the increased demand. In other words,…
I'm not surprised at all if this is the long term game plan. I'm curious though, what are the first three flywheels? AWS, retail sales, and what? Alexa/Kindle devices? Prime Video? Advertising? All of those seem like strong contenders but I'm not sure they really rival the AWS/retail arms (yet).
I predicted in October of 2018 [1], that in 3 years Amazon will start flying freight directly from China to US fulfillment centers and cut out the middlemen (FBA sellers). Since then Amazon has been on-boarding sellers in China at a rapid pace. - [1] https://www.scaleleap.com/zine/just-in-time-air/
They will let sellers scout products, and then squeeze them out after they have a product that's proven to move. It's better for Amazon this way, you can externalize lots of risk while still making a fat commission + assorted fees.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting point: The original reason for the double deck design on the 747 was to allow the entire nose to be a cargo door. Having an upstairs lounge or first class cabin was side benefit.
Boeing looked at many possible configurations for the 747, a full-length double-deck among them (photos exist of such a wind tunnel model). The short top deck exists for a variety of reasons, one of the more interesting ones is that the 747 was designed to be faster than later airliners, so the Whitcomb area rule is a factor in its design, especially noticeable in the -400 model, where the top deck ends above the win…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pretty sure I’ve read there will never be a cargo a380 because its max takeoff weight is low compared to its volume.
I think cause and effect may be chasing each other here. You're not wrong, but also the A380 was not designed to have a high takeoff weight because they never intended it to carry cargo, so it will never carry cargo because it has a low takeoff weight compared to its volume. It was a design decision to be a people mover. [0] 0: https://www.flexport.com/blog/airbus-a380-no-cargo-equivalen...
This reminds me of when Ryanair bought 100 Boeing 737-800 aircraft in 2002 after 9/11 hammered the airline industry[0], a very bold forward looking move. It was good for Ryanair and for Boeing. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2002/jan/24/theairlinei...
Right now Ryanair has almost 200 737-800MAX on order, significant amount of these were added during MAX grounding as the prices went down a lot. Bold looking move again, but still shitiest airliner out there
By what metric? Just because of the technical issues?
Statistically speaking it will likely end up being the safest variant of the 737 family simply because we live in an era where death in a commercial airline accident is approaching the level of a statistical anomaly. There are many reasons for this that are external to the actual nuts, bolts, and bits of the airplane.
Now if you're arguing all 737 variants are the shitiest airliner out there for passenger comfort, well I'll jump on board that argument!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the aircraft is required to fly at a certain performance level with one engine out, a 4 engine aircraft must have 4/3x100% of minimum required power when in nominal operating condition, a 2 engine aircraft must have 2/1x100%... I first heard this from a lecture by Henry Pohl (a truly brilliant engineer): https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/aeronautics-and-astronautics/16-...
I think you are missing the point here, or at least misapplying it. These are minimum figures, but if the four-engined airliners used in transoceanic flights were actually built to have no more reserve power (above the minimum necessary to keep flying) than the 133% you are quoting, they would have always have been less safe from engine failure than contemporary twin-engined airliners (which, in practice, always achi…
Will Amazon start to transport other things; in addition to goods they are selling? Human transport? Compete directly with UPS/FedEx?
This is what I speculated above. Basically AWS for logistics. It can't be far off in many countries such as USA/UK