707437 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 152 posts, RR: 1 Posted (8 years 3 hours ago) and read 7072 times:
Boeing has managed to market new build (not conversions) Combis and dedicated freighter for the entire range of 7 series aircraft except for the 717 and 787.
As far as I can tell only the A300 and A380 are offered as freighters. No A320s or 330 or 340 are offered as new build freighters.
So is Airbus not interested in the market? (for new build freighters only, not conversions) or what?
Have any A320s, A330s or A340s ever been converted for cargo use?
All I've ever seen in service are A300-600 freighters w/ FEDEX and UPS.
PanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 7771 posts, RR: 26 Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 hours ago) and read 7057 times:
The A310 has been converted to Freighter as well and is in service with FEDEX and a number of other airlines and air forces (Germany). Conversions are still under way at the EADS plant in Dresden. With the A330 Tanker, a freight version of that model might become available.
The Boeing 717's predecessor DC9 is available as freighter as well, completing the whole Boeing/McDonnel-Douglas range of modells.
The 787 might have a freighter version at a later stage.
Looks like Boeing has covered that market reasonably good and when there is no market for a second supplier they do not invest in it.
XXXX10 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2000, 777 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (8 years 1 hour ago) and read 6978 times:
I wasn't aware of the 777F. My guess would be that the A320 series aircraft would make bad freighters, probably because of a similar airframe being available in the size of the 727F at a lower cost. Although the Airbus is more efficient the extra cost of the new airframe would be prohibitive.
When the design is older and there are many parked up examples then you may see some conversions done, normally at that time would you see a purpose built A320 F. I would imagine the same is true of the A330 range and the A340.
I would that Boeings current freighter production is mainly the 747F there are not many new 767F and 757F aircraft built most are conversions.
PanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 7771 posts, RR: 26 Reply 6, posted (8 years 1 hour ago) and read 6959 times:
The freighter market is actually much smaller than for passenger aircraft, That plus the comversions make it less attractive to offer a freighter version for every type of aircraft that is available.
Because this is such a small market and Boeing already has most of it. Most Freighter companies prefer to acquire older aircraft which airlines don't want anymore. They just convert them into cargo aircraft, and voila, you've got your freighter. Most cargo companies will not invest in expensive new aircraft. There is no point... you have no passengers to please. As long as it takes the cargo from X to Z, mission accomplised
There is only one case I remember covering during my studies which was an exception to this. DHL at EGNX was sort of pressured (to put it nicely) from the area into buying aircraft that were quieter than the ones they already operated. People were getting disturbed by DHLs old noisy aircraft using the airport in the middle of the night, so they were (to get to the point) forced to use B757s instead.
So I think Airbus has taken the right steps to stay out of this market which would actually not benefit it. The A380F is the exception because it will be the largest freighter available and there is no aircraft to compete with it .This might have been the reason (IMO a wise decision) for airbus to build a cargo aircraft!
Hope this answers your question
Edit: Yes, thanks Oly720man for mentioning the Beluga as well, it completely slipped my mind. I don't care what people say about it. I'd go to the airport any day to watch it land
Trex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 3970 posts, RR: 14 Reply 9, posted (7 years 12 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 6805 times:
Quoting M404 (Reply 5): Since Boeing is said to have stated that the 787 cannot be made into a tanker can we assume a freighter is also unfeasible?
it all depends on what they think is the market, the problem is you cannot just cut out a section of a composite fuselage and stuff a big cargo door there which is what most freighter concersions entails (besides strengthened floors). It has to be built from scratch that way. If the market is potentially big enough to justify the capital costs they could do it. But it probably isn't. With a tanker or other special military operations version (sigint/elint etc), there definitely is no market for making a whole new fuselage structure with multiple apertures for the various antenna needed.
DAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 4 Reply 10, posted (7 years 12 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 6795 times:
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 1): The 787 might have a freighter version at a later stage.
Ah, a fresh rumor! Just kidding, couldn't help myself.
PanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 7771 posts, RR: 26 Reply 11, posted (7 years 12 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 6734 times:
Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 10):
Ah, a fresh rumor! Just kidding, couldn't help myself.
To put out a fresh rumor, the word would have been "will eventually" - I wrote "might" which is a wild guess based on the experience that Boeing had freighter versions of every base model so far. Adding to the wild guess I'd say that this is about 15 years down the road.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21029 posts, RR: 60 Reply 13, posted (7 years 12 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 6664 times:
Maybe you can't cut out a door, but you certainly could slice the sucker into two, remove a chunk, and replace it with a reengineered chunk built with a door...
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Widebodyphotog From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 917 posts, RR: 68 Reply 14, posted (7 years 12 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 6642 times:
The fundamental problem with larger Airbus widebody freighters is twofold:
First, the A330 cross section is too small to load the same container contour as a 777F, MD11/DC10, or 747F. Where the former mentioned aircraft can load two M size containers/pallets side-by-side, the A330 cross section is too small to do so with a practical ULD contour.
Secondly is structural efficiency. Airbus aircraft are notoriously heavy relative to the structural payload limits of the airframe. Take for example 777-200LR vs A340-500. Both aircraft have a similar internal volume and floor area. However the empty weight of the Airbus is 377,000lbs while the Boeing is 320,000lbs. Their respective structural payload limits are 119,000lbs and 141,000lbs. The 777 is able to carry a much higher payload per unit structural weight, this is generally true of all Boeing aircraft, and why they make good freighters. The 777F structural weight will be reduced by 25-30,000lbs relative to the passenger version and payload would increase to 229,000lbs. In order for the A345 to gain comparable structural efficiency with the same maximum payload Airbus would have to reduce the structural weight by 82-87,000lbs! Basically that is impossible to do on that aircraft.
In the freighter world structural efficiency means everything. It is a direct indicator of what your ton/mile cost will be. Volume efficiency is next, basically how much of the cross section area X hold length is able to be filled with freight in a practical manner. The A330/A340 cross section/airframe loses out on both of these relative to the competition.
In the case of the A380 relative to 747, the Airbus still comes up short in terms of structural efficiency, but it has a tremendous loadable voulume and Boeing can not yet match its 150t maximum payload. This is a blessing and a curse for the A380F. The density of loading must be kept low relative to payload, and the ton/mile cost will still be higher than the 747F. But it will be able to carry it's maximum payload 700nm farther than 747F. This bascally limits the most efficient application of A380F to the package freight business where freight density is low, sectors are long, and per kilo yields are very high. The 747F and its new little brother 777F are much more flexible because their specific operating costs are low, and payload vs volume is just about optimal giving them a much broader range of potential applications.
-widebodyphotog
If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
MD80Nut From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 871 posts, RR: 10 Reply 15, posted (7 years 12 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 6627 times:
What about conversions of older A320s to freighters? In the next few years the oldest A320s in service will start to hit the 20 year old mark, is anybody planning or thinking about converting some of them to cargo in the future? It seems to me the combination of the A320's wider fuselage plus the ability to use containers in the belly would make the A320 an attractive candidate for conversion to freighter. Or are there issues I'm not aware of that would not make it so?
Dutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 58 Reply 16, posted (7 years 12 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 6618 times:
Dont forget that Airbus has been very successful with its A300 Freighters - the A300 has had a "second-life" as a newbuild freighter which has suprised many, including some at Airbus. UPS and FedEx have enormous fleets of new-build A300Fs which have kept the A300 production line open in the past years. FedEx has also converted many, many A310s (first the less popular -200 series and now the -300 series) into freighters. A good number of the A380s on order are dedicated freighters, so there is a future.
A huge portion of cargo airliners are conversions - and conversions in significant numbers usually occur as an aircraft type matures. The simple fact is that most of the Airbus airliners flying around are not that old! The A300 and A310 series have had many conversions, but the A330/340 are, for the most part, are simply too new - maybe in the future, maybe not.
Airbus has not focused on newbuild freighters thus far (except for the A300 and the coming A380F), but over time, we may see Airbus launch an A330 Freighter variant.
Areopagus From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1357 posts, RR: 1 Reply 17, posted (7 years 12 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 6575 times:
Quoting M404 (Reply 5): Since Boeing is said to have stated that the 787 cannot be made into a tanker can we assume a freighter is also unfeasible?
The 787 fuselage descends from the Sonic Cruiser design, which a Boeing official claimed to be good in the freighter role, being designed wide enough to carry pallets sideways on the main deck.
Trex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 3970 posts, RR: 14 Reply 18, posted (7 years 12 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 6489 times:
Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 14): First, the A330 cross section is too small to load the same container contour as a 777F, MD11/DC10, or 747F. Where the former mentioned aircraft can load two M size containers/pallets side-by-side, the A330 cross section is too small to do so with a practical ULD contour.
do you mean 2 M1s with its longest dimension parallel to the walls or transverse??? a P7E / PGE / PGA is 238in wide and barely fits, 2 M1s would be 250in! height maybe a problem with a M1 in a A300, its 8feet!
PHXinterrupted From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 474 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (7 years 12 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 6478 times:
Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 16): Dont forget that Airbus has been very successful with its A300 Freighters - the A300 has had a "second-life" as a newbuild freighter which has suprised many, including some at Airbus. UPS and FedEx have enormous fleets of new-build A300Fs which have kept the A300 production line open in the past years. FedEx has also converted many, many A310s (first the less popular -200 series and now the -300 series) into freighters. A good number of the A380s on order are dedicated freighters, so there is a future.
A huge portion of cargo airliners are conversions - and conversions in significant numbers usually occur as an aircraft type matures. The simple fact is that most of the Airbus airliners flying around are not that old! The A300 and A310 series have had many conversions, but the A330/340 are, for the most part, are simply too new - maybe in the future, maybe not.
Airbus has not focused on newbuild freighters thus far (except for the A300 and the coming A380F), but over time, we may see Airbus launch an A330 Freighter variant.
Just for the record:
The 330/340 program was officially launched in June 1987. The 777 program was officially launched in October 1990.
Widebodyphotog From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 917 posts, RR: 68 Reply 20, posted (7 years 12 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 6416 times:
An "M" sixe pallet has base dimensions of 96 X 125 "M1" is an IATA rate class for a 10ft container.
IATA size code for a 20ft pallet is "G", 96 X 238.5 inches base dimensions. 777F will be able to load G size pallets in the same configuration as 747F, but slightly different contour.
Here is the cross section of 777F
A300/310 can load standard M base pallets or containers with the 96 inch base dimension across the cabin, and 96 inch high rectangular contour.
But it can not load two "J" contour (MD-11/DC-10, 96 inches high) or "D" contour (747, 118 inches high) M base containers side by side. It's simply not possible.
787 cross section is able to accomodate M base containers/pallets with the 125 inch side across the cabin, allowing more units per length of fuselage than the A300/310 cross section.
-widebodyphotog
[Edited 2005-05-28 04:38:18]
If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
WhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (7 years 12 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 6280 times:
Quoting 777ER (Reply 21): The beluga is only for Airbus use
The Beluga is available for external work should it arise, although so far that has been limited (pretty sure ESA use it for moving rocket parts around). Airbus would build them for customers if anyone wanted them, but it is a very specialised aircraft and needs substantial ground support assets.
Shame that Airbus never managed to get Boeing involved when the aircraft was designed. That could have saved Seattle a lot of dough nowadays. The original Beluga was proposed around a 767 base aircraft but Boeing refused to become involved, and an A300 was used instead. That aircraft could have been extremely useful to Boeing nowadays with the 737 fuselage bullet hole problem and the forthcoming 787.
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 23, posted (7 years 12 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 6259 times:
Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 14): First, the A330 cross section is too small to load the same container contour as a 777F, MD11/DC10, or 747F.
The 330 has the same cross section as the A300/310, the aircraft of choice of cargo specialists like UPS, FEDEX & DHL.
Are you sure you are telling the full story here?
No doubt there will be an A330F and SF conversions at some point when passengers aircraft sales (higher margins) drop and the large A300/310F fleet starts aging..
A330´s using industry standard LD3 containers rather than the special purpose LD2s, which are exclusive to the 767, made it a winner.
ClipperNo1 From Germany, joined May 1999, 671 posts, RR: 2 Reply 24, posted (7 years 12 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 6235 times:
Quoting MD80Nut (Reply 15): What about conversions of older A320s to freighters?
I think FX looked into that before bulk-buying 734s. With no Integrator (DHL too small, UPS with sh!tloads of A300s on hand) in sight for such a project I doubt it will happen in the next 10 years. The critical go-ahead mass for such a conversion-project should be around 100 airframes. LLike I said..maybe in 10 years.
I'd love to see/utilize an A319CJ-F, but it won't happen.
"I really don't know one plane from the other. To me they are just marginal costs with wings."� Alfred Kahn, 1977
25 Widebodyphotog: It can not load two of them side-by-side like MD-11 or 747F can. FedEx Side-by-side loading on A310/A300 is an AYY next to an AMJ. -widebodyphotog
26 Widebodyphotog: An illustration to scale of the transverse cargo envelope of these aircraft -widebodyphotog
27 777STL: I still don't get it, why is that a problem? The 330 has the same cross section of the 300 and the 300 is a very capable freighter. Obviously the 330
28 Widebodyphotog: The A300-600F is a capable 45t package freighter. It's loading density is very low and that's fine for FedEx and UPS because their per kilo yields are
29 OldAeroGuy: And an A345 Freighter looks even worse considering its high OEW and poor fuel efficiency. The 777F has a pretty clear field in its size category.
30 Udo: Wrong. Airbus Transport International is regularly contracted to fly satellites or large machinery. Regards Udo
31 Keesje: You picking the A330-300 makes me a bit suspicous. The 330-200 seems more logical. (tankers, range)
33 Widebodyphotog: Suspicious of what? OK, let's look at a possible A330-200 conversion Estimated OEW: 240,000 Max Zero Fuel weight: 381,400 (From A340-200) Max structu
34 N79969: The A300 has an advantage over the 767F that I do not think has been mentioned. If I recall correctly, the A300F belly hold can accommodate side-by-si
35 Widebodyphotog: This is only partially true... The containerized hold on 763F can load ULD 96 inches wide while the A300F can load ULD 125 inches wide. But while the
36 Unicorn: One reason that we have not seen cargo conversions of A320 and A330 / A340 series aircraft is that the residual values have not yet fallen to the poin
37 Cslusarc: Has FedEx already bought 734s to replace their aging 727s (both -1XX and -2XX variants)? I would have remembered it being mentioned. How much longer
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 152 posts, 
From Germany, joined May 2005, 7771 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 11368 posts, 
From Austria, joined May 2005, 4604 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 11319 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
