Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
It's Official - Boeing Is Marketing The 777LRF  
User currently offlineBoeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 9453 times:

In the latest AW&ST, an article states that Boeing is talking to airlines about launching the 777LRF. It will be able to carry 10 ft high pallets loaded through a cargo door that is to be located aft of the port wing. Evidently, crew rest areas will be installed above the cockpit and above the main deck for what Boeing calls "supernumerary cargo handling personnel". The 777 Freighter will be able to carry a 222,000 lb payload for 5,200 nm. The 747F carries up to 248,000 lbs 4,445 nm. The 777LRF will have the highest cargo density rating at 9.9 lbs per cubic feet. For comparison, the 747F has 9.8 lbs per cu ft and the A380F will have 8 lbs per cu ft. No time frame was given for a potential launch date.

Let the speculation begin!!  Big thumbs up

66 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineN1120a From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26196 posts, RR: 76
Reply 1, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 9339 times:

>In the latest AW&ST, an article states that Boeing is talking to airlines about launching the 777LRF. It will be able to carry 10 ft high pallets loaded through a cargo door that is to be located aft of the port wing. Evidently, crew rest areas will be installed above the cockpit and above the main deck for what Boeing calls "supernumerary cargo handling personnel". The 777 Freighter will be able to carry a 222,000 lb payload for 5,200 nm. The 747F carries up to 248,000 lbs 4,445 nm. The 777LRF will have the highest cargo density rating at 9.9 lbs per cubic feet. For comparison, the 747F has 9.8 lbs per cu ft and the A380F will have 8 lbs per cu ft. No time frame was given for a potential launch date<

Sounds like the MD-11F operators will finally have a plane they can use when they cannot get any more MD-11 PAX aircraft. This sounds like an awesome plane. Still, no flip top nose, no outsized cargo, 747F still rules



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineGreaser From Bahamas, joined Jan 2004, 1092 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 9316 times:

Given the A380F has 330,000 lbs MTOW, but the max. density is lower than both the 777/747, does this mean the 380F is only effective carrying parcels/low-density goods???
Also, whats the range on the 747ERF?



Now you're really flying
User currently offlineN1120a From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26196 posts, RR: 76
Reply 3, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 9272 times:

>Given the A380F has 330,000 lbs MTOW, but the max. density is lower than both the 777/747, does this mean the 380F is only effective carrying parcels/low-density goods???
Also, whats the range on the 747ERF<

Yes, it will be better for transporting lots and lots of lightweight packages. It will basically be a bigger MD-11F.

The range for the 747ERF is 4970 nm, according to Boeing.com, meaning it can do LAX-NRT with no stop in ANC



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 9250 times:

crew rest areas will be installed above the cockpit and above the main deck

That's nothing new... Delta, Alitalia, etc are all flying T7s with that configuration already.


User currently offlineUdo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 9221 times:

With the aircraft's high price tag I expect Emirates to be among the first customers.

User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 11853 posts, RR: 18
Reply 6, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 9198 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

About what price tag would the price be?

What airlines would be interested in the freighter?


User currently offlineN1120a From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26196 posts, RR: 76
Reply 7, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 9181 times:

>About what price tag would the price be?<

Probably a bit over 200 million US, as the 772LR PAX price tag is 202-225.5 million.

>What airlines would be interested in the freighter?<

LH Cargo, FX, EK Cargo, JL Cargo, AF Cargo, maybe UPS, etc.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineDABZF From Germany, joined Mar 2004, 1200 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 9088 times:

I thought this was old news!?
Was it just not REALLY official until now?



I like driving backwards in the fog cause it doesn't remind me of anything - Chris Cornell
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 9016 times:

With the aircraft's high price tag I expect Emirates to be among the first customers.

Actually, according to SeattlePI... that's been EK's major holdup in ordering the pax 772LR. So who knows.


User currently offlineBoeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 8849 times:

crew rest areas will be installed above the cockpit and above the main deck

That's nothing new... Delta, Alitalia, etc are all flying T7s with that configuration already.


Very true, but it could be surprising to some that this is incorporated in a cargo aircraft. The flight crew rest area doesn't surprise me at all, but the over the main deck does as it could impede loading the tall pallets.

Makes you wonder now if there will be any studies for a -300ERF. Probably not.


User currently offlineSATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 8802 times:

Greaser,

"Given the A380F has 330,000 lbs MTOW, but the max. density is ...."

Good luck getting your ultra lightweight A380F to fly....

SATL382G


User currently offlineGreaser From Bahamas, joined Jan 2004, 1092 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 8586 times:

SATL382G, hey man, don't blame me, i got me numbers from Airbus! I meant 330,000lbs of freight, MTOW is about 600,000lbs!!!


Now you're really flying
User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16345 posts, RR: 86
Reply 13, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 8566 times:

Given the A380F has 330,000 lbs MTOW, but the max. density is lower than both the 777/747, does this mean the 380F is only effective carrying parcels/low-density goods???

Not at all. It will still be a very heavy hauler.

It just means that it has a high amount of volume vs its max payload. That's not necessarily a problem.

N


User currently offlineIowa744fan From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 931 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 8540 times:

First, it is good to see that Boeing is offering this model. I think that it could be a useful addition to some airlines cargo fleets, particularly in Asia and perhaps Emirates as the cargo industries there continue to grow rapidly. However, I am concerned that the price tag may be a sticking issue with some airlines. Particularly, an airline like Fed Ex. I would assume that Fed Ex is not too concerned with the cargo density rating. For them, as mentioned, the total cargo volume seems like it would be a more important factor...hence the A380F making a lot of sense for an airline like them. For their China routes, they are mainly interested on getting more volume to allow for more parcels to be carried on their limited number of slots into China. So, is this aircraft likely to be a strong candidate for Fed Ex? I can understand as a replacement/compliment for the MD-11 but the price tag seems like a bit much. Although more of UPS's business involves larger packages instead of overnight parcels, does this aircraft look to be a strong candidate for them either?

User currently offlineRedDragon From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2004, 1135 posts, RR: 7
Reply 15, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 8086 times:

crew rest areas will be installed above the cockpit and above the main deck

That's nothing new... Delta, Alitalia, etc are all flying T7s with that configuration already.

Is the flight crew rest above the cockpit? I though it was located just behind the cockpit, à la 747...

How high would the internal load height be without overhead crew rests? Presumably that 10' figure is including them?

Rich


User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16345 posts, RR: 86
Reply 16, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 8040 times:

I still see no actual evidence that they're prepared to offer it, of course.

N


User currently offlineBoeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 7853 times:

Is the flight crew rest above the cockpit? I though it was located just behind the cockpit, à la 747...

You're right. It's just above and behind the cockpit.


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 18, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 7560 times:

I don't expect a B777-300ERF. Why? The only advantage it would have over the B777-200LRF is volume. However, it would cost more to buy, cost more to operate at a given payload/range, and have a lower payload capacity.

User currently offlineCcrlR From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 2223 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 7441 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Finally a 777 Freighter! I have a question, Can you make the MD-80 a freighter? I know about the DC-9s are ale to do it, but what about the DC-9-80 variant?


"He was right, it is a screaming metal deathtrap!"-Cosmo (from the Fairly Oddparents)
User currently offlineSolnabo From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 847 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 7417 times:

The 747 ERF still rules!

Micke//SE  Big grin



Airbus SAS - Love them both
User currently offlineJayhup From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 452 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 6669 times:

UPS will be the launch customer.

Trust me...

JH


User currently offlineIowa744fan From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 931 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 6591 times:

CclrR,

I am sure that you can. The US Navy and I think that Air Force operate military versions of the DC-9-30 with a side cargo door, so I am sure that it is possible. It just might take a little bit of time for certification (I wouldn't expect too much since it is in use with the military). Airborne Express (now DHL)does use the DC-9 for cargo operations, however, they don't have a side cargo door. Instead, they use a narrower type of container that fits through the normal passenger door. To answer your question though, it could easily be done.


User currently offlineDc10guy From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 2685 posts, RR: 6
Reply 23, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 6582 times:

IF this happens I would expect Airbus to offer a A340-500F ...That would be a nice freighter.


Next time try the old "dirty Sanchez" She'll love it !!!
User currently offlineUPS Pilot From United States of America, joined May 1999, 871 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 6457 times:

UPS will probably be the launch cst. With the China flights now tripled of what they were. The 742's being returned to the lessors. The limited numbers of MD-11's that can be converted and buying Menlo to get into heavy freight, a LRF is needed very bad for UPS. Boeing wants UPS' business back from Airbus. UPS gave Airbus their largest single aircraft order ever with the A300.

25 BCAInfoSys : Guys.. it will happen, trust me. ConcordeBoy and I announced this back in August, so it basically is old news. But yes, if you want a source, you can
26 Post contains links and images ConcordeBoy : Is the flight crew rest above the cockpit? I though it was located just behind the cockpit, à la 747... Above, and slightly behind. View Large View M
27 Dc10guy : 2009 is a long way a way, and I never say never ... But. FEDEX won't buy new 777's with 60 + MD11's why would they ??? Douglas aircraft fly good forev
28 DfwRevolution : IF this happens I would expect Airbus to offer a A340-500F ...That would be a nice freighter. Probably not.... the A345 has a much higher OEW (nearly
29 N1120a : >2009 is a long way a way, and I never say never ... But. FEDEX won't buy new 777's with 60 + MD11's why would they ??? Douglas aircraft fly good fore
30 Widebodyphotog : I have believed since it's inception that the 777-200LR would be the basis for the first new build, all freight 777. However I would be more inclined
31 Flpuck6 : Air France is looking to supplement its 747-400ERF fleet with 777LRFs.
32 BOEING747-700 : Air Canada is closer then we think to looking at the 777ER. Can someone confrim this, we were told this by the 744 pilots on AC flight home from YUL
33 DfwRevolution : Air Canada is closer then we think to looking at the 777ER. Can someone confrim this, we were told this by the 744 pilots on AC flight home from YUL W
34 Iowa744fan : A quick question about the older Fed Ex DC-10-10 conversions. Are these aircraft mainly used for service within the United States? Are any (DC-10-30s
35 Gigneil : MTOW is about 600,000lbs!!! I missed this earlier. The MTOW of an A380-800F is over 1.2 million pounds, not 600,000 pounds. N
36 Dc10guy : Fedex is buying used A300-600's they make great freighters. Unless Boeing can start dealing airplanes like Airbus does I'm sure Fedex will stay with A
37 Greaser : Gigneil, so the 380F is basically an a380HGWF??? Coz the A380-800 MTOW is 606,000lbs
38 Gigneil : No, it is not. Even a regular A380-800 has an MTOW over 1.1 million pounds. The MTOW of a 777-200ER is more than 606,000 lbs. The MTOW of a 747-400ER
39 Post contains links Boeing nut : Can you make the MD-80 a freighter? I know about the DC-9s are ale to do it, but what about the DC-9-80 variant? Yep. Boeing converts just about every
40 WIDEBODYPHOTOG : MTOW's for various A/C mentioned in this post A380-800 = 1,234,576lbs(560,000kg) A380F (Airbus Projection) = 1,300,714lbs(590,000kg) 747-400ERF = 910,
41 Post contains images ConcordeBoy : Trent 894 Trent895
42 Hamlet69 : Just received word that Boeing could make an official announcement as early as Monday. Don't expect a launch order, though, only an official announcem
43 Hamlet69 : BTW - forgot to mention that LH Cargo, UPS and EVA Cargo are the three highest rated 'potentials' to launch the aircraft - or at the least the most in
44 Greaser : I don't think LH cargo would be the first in line, as EVA Air would be. This 777LRF would integrate fantastically with their mainline 777s, and they s
45 Gigneil : Well, the cutback in AB6s is due to a oversupply in shorthaul capacity. They have admitted that they're way behind in longahaul capacity, so I would e
46 Post contains links United777 : Just thought you guys would like to see this article from a local news station. http://www.komotv.com/stories/33966.htm
47 Dalecary : LH could well be in the first line of orderers for the 772LRF, particularly if they combine it with a 773ER order(which has been rumored on several si
48 N79969 : Dale, Are you saying that LH may (with heavy emphasis on "may") be interested in actually acquiring passenger 777-300ER? And not just baiting Airbus t
49 Post contains images Boeing nut : And not just baiting Airbus to save a few Euros? I'm not gonna open that can of worms.
50 CX747 : LH's possible order of 777-200LRF/777-300ERs has been mentioned on several forums along with this one. I love LH, and think it is a wonderfully run co
51 SNATH : forgot to mention that LH Cargo, UPS and EVA Cargo are the three highest rated 'potentials' to launch the aircraft Flight International had in fact me
52 Post contains images Trex8 : >"If you don't operate the 777 then you are either not a major airline or Lufthansa." well, I guess I always did have my doubts about Northwest and US
53 Dalecary : N79969, I don't know the status of LH's "interest" in the 773ER,except what I have read in the press and seen in various forums recently. I guess the
54 MauriceB : as some of you mentioned, for sure no 777-200LRF for Martinair, they just orderd 747-400SF's for replacing theire 4 747-200f's (they order 5 400's)
55 Post contains links and images SNATH : It's now up on Boeing's WWW site: http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2004/q4/nr_041115g.html Tony[Edited 2004-11-15 16:54:37]
56 KEESJE : and now it's really formal.. (Flight) Boeing confirms launch of 777 freighter Darren Shannon, Washington DC (15 Nov 04 10:18 GMT) Boeing has confirmed
57 Greaser : Rumored customers are now UPS (sorry Gigneil), EVA, SQ (Surprise Surprise), EK, LH Cargo
58 SNATH : Greaser, Rumored customers are now UPS (sorry Gigneil), EVA, SQ (Surprise Surprise), EK, LH Cargo Could you give us a source? Tony
59 Post contains images LH423 : you could also make an argument that if you are a N American carrier and use triple 7s, you go bankrupt! I believe you might want to change that to A3
60 Post contains images Greaser : EVA, LH, UPS are by the SeattlePI, SQ somewhere on the internet, but they are JUST RUMORS, just like the one on ORYJA's CLOGS!!!
61 SQ7345 : SQ is def looking for a smaller cargo plane than the 744F. The 777LRF would enable them to serve markets like VIE, BSL, MUC, cities they all served wi
62 Gigneil : Rumored customers are now UPS (sorry Gigneil) Why are you apologizing to me? I said they had an undersupply of longhaul capacity, and would need to do
63 Greaser : I said sorry coz i was wrong, not coz you were...
64 Gigneil : Oh. Hokay. filler. N
65 VirginFlyer : What's up with the cargo door being behind the wing? I would have thought in front of the wing would be the more logical place to have it. The only fr
66 Boeing nut : What's up with the cargo door being behind the wing? I would have thought in front of the wing would be the more logical place to have it. The only fr
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
It's Official, ATL Is The World's Busiest. posted Sat Aug 21 1999 06:54:46 by WILLIAM
Now It's Official: Aeroflot Is A Sky Team Partner! posted Fri Apr 14 2006 11:02:02 by 777
Is Cargolux The 777LRF Launcher posted Wed Nov 30 2005 06:07:47 by Wdleiser
It's Official: C8 Is Ending DAY Service posted Tue Jan 4 2005 00:16:18 by Skyway1
It's Official Boeing Wins Ryanair Order posted Wed Jan 23 2002 15:49:41 by Artsyman
It's Official: TWA Is Now AA posted Sat Apr 7 2001 00:29:38 by Wanderlust
Now It's Really Official - Boeing 777LRF Launched posted Tue Nov 16 2004 00:20:08 by Boeing nut
IT'S Official! The 7E7 Is Going Ahead! posted Tue Dec 16 2003 23:12:38 by BCAInfoSys
A Little Humor. (Is This The Right Forum For It?) posted Fri Sep 8 2006 13:39:39 by BlazingCessna
It's Official "Jetstar Asia" Is Gone.... posted Wed Jul 26 2006 07:20:12 by GneissGuy