Jacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 61 Reply 2, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 5279 times:
Quoting Leelaw (Thread starter): Airbus aims to fill the hole left by the demise of the Airbus A300-600F by “quickly” developing a cargo version of the A330.
I'm not surprised by this move, but I wonder how this will compare to the 787 (if the 787 will be used for freighter work)
A319XFW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 5237 times:
Even though I might be stating the obvious, but the signs were there for an A330F and now that the A300-600F line will close it seems only natural that the A330 should fill its place.
Does anyone know if the 54.3T for the A300 compared to 63T for the A330 will be an issue (positive/negative)?
CptGermany From Germany, joined Feb 2006, 86 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 5108 times:
Looking at the graph in the FLIGHT International, it looks like Airbus should have launched the A330F in the '97/'98 airframe. I guess they were busy with the A345/346 and A380 development, though.
Anybody knows what will Airbus do with the hangar in which the A300 line is currently being assembled? I hope they won't tear it down because it has lots of history (Concorde and A300 birthplace).
EDDM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 222 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 4927 times:
Quoting CptGermany (Reply 4): Anybody knows what will Airbus do with the hangar in which the A300 line is currently being assembled? I hope they won't tear it down because it has lots of history (Concorde and A300 birthplace).
Leelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 4867 times:
Quoting CptGermany (Reply 4): Looking at the graph in the FLIGHT International, it looks like Airbus should have launched the A330F in the '97/'98 airframe.
IMO, UPS' decision to cancel 37 A306Fs last year caught Airbus by surprise, they thought there would be more time to transition to the A330F.
Dc10guy From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 2685 posts, RR: 7 Reply 8, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 4829 times:
The A300 fits Fedex for inter US routes. I don't think the A330 will upgrade or replace the A300 there. For Fedex they need a 727 replacement. I would like to see a A321F. Airbus should make a whole line of freighters A320f's A340-600f's too.
Next time try the old "dirty Sanchez" She'll love it !!!
DfwRevolution From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 4799 times:
Quoting Dc10guy (Reply 9): For Fedex they need a 727 replacement. I would like to see a A321F.
The payload density and range may come up a bit short for the optimal, modern freighter. The A320 would probably be a much more ideal new-build freighter platform.
Quoting Dc10guy (Reply 9): Airbus should make a whole line of freighters A320f's
There's zero reason to build a freighter for every single A320 type. The market for new-build narrow-body freighters is hardly that strong, and if anyone really would benefit from an A319 freighter, they could just convert it.
Trex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 3970 posts, RR: 14 Reply 11, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 4799 times:
they were almost going to launch it several years ago and ILFC was going to pick up a bunch, then the market went south and then eventually divebombed with 9/11 and they put it on the backburner.
Quoting Keesje (Reply 8): I guess Airbus has to rush the A330F into production to counter the formidable payload range competition that caught them by surprice once again.
are you talking 777F? I doubt they really compete in the same market, the A332F would be a 767/A300F replacement. If A300F production ends in summer 07, they would have more than adequate time to develop an A332F. I can see lots of A330 operators wanting them - CI, CA, CZ, BR, TG, KE, KA, QR. Some of those guys like CI are flying 744Fs to places in SE Asia which don't need that capacity at all.
Why wouldn't they wait another year and get 787/A350 engines on it? Will they offer all 3 present A332 engine options on the freighter version?
Dc10guy From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 2685 posts, RR: 7 Reply 12, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 4768 times:
I can't see why a A340-600 wouldn't make a good freighter. Big freighters are for long haul and the A340-600 would come close to a MD11. The only A320 type that would work as a freighter IMHO would be the A321. A 727-200 on a good day hauls 55k Surely an A321F could do that. But the A330F should make a great freighter too.
Next time try the old "dirty Sanchez" She'll love it !!!
Breiz From France, joined Mar 2005, 1808 posts, RR: 2 Reply 13, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 4743 times:
Quoting Leelaw (Reply 7): IMO, UPS' decision to cancel 37 A306Fs last year caught Airbus by surprise, they thought there would be more time to transition to the A330F.
As you know, Leelaw, the cancellation of the 37 A306Fs was part of the deal for A380s. I doubt it came to Airbus as "a surprise".
And if we remember the existence of the A330MRTT and KC-30 projects, both shown with a large front cargo door, we can assume that EADS and Airbus are working on the A330F since quite some time.
Trex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 3970 posts, RR: 14 Reply 14, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 4715 times:
Quoting A319XFW (Reply 3): Does anyone know if the 54.3T for the A300 compared to 63T for the A330 will be an issue (positive/negative)?
well considering some operators like CI are finding the fuel burn on an A333 is similar to a A306, an A332F is giving you significantly better payload/volume for probably little if any more fuel and maybe less! your landing fees will be higher though
Leelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 4558 times:
Quoting Breiz (Reply 14): As you know, Leelaw, the cancellation of the 37 A306Fs was part of the deal for A380s. I doubt it came to Airbus as "a surprise".
I'm not sure I understand. Airbus couldn't have sold UPS both the A306F and the A380F, and/or Airbus always knew UPS wouldn't order the A380 without cancelling the A306s? Seems to me the parties agreed to make the best of a potentially bad situation.
Quoting Breiz (Reply 14): And if we remember the existence of the A330MRTT and KC-30 projects, both shown with a large front cargo door, we can assume that EADS and Airbus are working on the A330F since quite some time.
Probably, but this news article seems to indicate that the pace of development of the A330F has been accelerated, ostensibly because production of the A306F petered-out sooner than expected?
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 65 Reply 16, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 4539 times:
Quoting Dc10guy (Reply 13): I can't see why a A340-600 wouldn't make a good freighter.
The A340-600 is far too heavy relative to its payload capability to be a freighter. The A340-500 would be a better (but still not good) choice. The A330 makes much more sense for a freighter than any A340.
Johnny From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4405 times:
the A330F - a great freighter-new AND converted !!!
the A346F - absolutely fantastic payload on really long routes which do not require large volume.Big advantage also : NO ETOPS Checks required at less developed airfields with lack of engineering staff!
The A330F and A340F would offer the possibilty to exchange containers and pallets from medium- and shorthaul-flights which are operated with A300F and A310F.
So probably FedEX would be a HOT!!!! candidate!!!
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 65 Reply 18, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 4383 times:
Quoting Johnny (Reply 19): the A346F - absolutely fantastic payload on really long routes which do not require large volume.
Range is just not a big issue for cargo ops. Cargo doesn't mind making stops enroute. The big issue is operating cost per tonne. An A340-600F would have a very high operating cost per tonne compared to an A330-200F.
Johnny From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 4358 times:
Range or increased payload is an issue as well.
Look at FedEx and UPS which both want to replace two MD11´s with a fuelstop with just one A388F which flies non-stop.
Also, if the operating costs per seat are lower for the A346 than for the A330 than i assume the same ratio for the A346F and the A332F per to payload...
Ozair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 663 posts, RR: 1 Reply 20, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 4343 times:
Quoting Johnny (Reply 19): the A330F - a great freighter-new AND converted !!!
I think this conversion will be the big hit of the 2010s just like the 747s now. With airlines replacing their A330s with new build A350s and 787s expect to see a number of firms offering this conversion package and the A330SF?? becoming the choice for medium haul work.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21029 posts, RR: 60 Reply 23, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 4298 times:
Quoting PlaneHunter (Reply 6): An A330 freighter would offer an enormous range/payload advantage over the A300-600F, so that variant could become quite popular.
Not to mention that it has great conversion potential...
Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 10): Just a thought.... An A350 version would be more fuel efficient no???
Sure. But they need to commit to a pax version first and deliver the hundreds that will be in demand. EIS of an A350F would be 2015 at the earliest, more likely 2017-18.
Quoting Johnny (Reply 19): the A330F - a great freighter-new AND converted !!!
Right. And it's important to establish this, because Airbus is 2 years behind the 787, and will want to convince airlines to buy 330s in the mean time to help with immediate needs until the 350s can be delivered. If those airlines know there will be a used market for the 330, it will make those deals more viable. And a future F conversion makes the market for used 330s stronger, even as pax sales. After all, the second hand customer will have equal comfort in knowing that the 330 they buy can be sold later to a freight carrier.
I believe it's one reason the 763 sold the best, and the 764 was a hard sell. 763 had an F version and conversion potential. 764 does not.
I do wonder, will Airbus do a concurrent conversion certification program for the 332/333 after certifying the 332F new builds?
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Johnny From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 4291 times:
Hmmm,
probably Airbus starts with the new build A330F first and after it with conversion of the A343 first and AFTER it with the conversion of the A330 because the A330 will have a longer life as pax airplane than the A343...
25 Areopagus: Aviation Week wrote of the A380F: While the aircraft is designed to carry a 150-metric-ton gross payload up to 5,600 naut. mi., customers have expres
26 A319XFW: No, that's the A330/A340 Final Assembly Line. The A300 line is in a hangar next to the A320 and ATR FAL (red-brick IIRC).
27 Astuteman: This would have been my response too. Would an A350F be in the same category as an A330F?
29 PM: Just now many "hundreds" of A343s do you believe to be out there? They have only built 212 and two of those are no longer flying.
30 Ikramerica: 200 is hundreds, last time I checked. My guess though is that many 342/3s will end up as charters and as second hand planes in asia/africa/south ameri
31 Johnny: @ PM are you counting peanuts..?!? 212 built are hundreds ,because hundreds is a abreviation of several hundreds,which means more than 199 ... Johnny
32 PM: You have to "check"? Are there places where people like you can look that kind of thing up?! But, your research is spot on. "Hundreds" implies a plur
33 Shenzhen: Cheers If the price is right, and there is an STC available, then they will be converted. What major widebody program doesn't have a conversion? The o
34 Johnny: @ PM you are wrong again : MORE than 199 plus 1 means not 200 but 201... Johnny
35 Atmx2000: ahem: several(a): (used with count nouns) of an indefinite number more than 2 or 3 but not many; "several letters came in the mail"; "several people
36 Ikramerica: yes, nobody said several except poor Johnny. 200 is hundreds, but it is not several hundred, unfortunately. it is "a few" hundred though.
37 Leelaw: Weren't a few L1011s converted to freighters (was this done on an ad hoc basis?); I'm not sure if an A343 cargo conversion would be any more successf
38 PM: Well, the RAF TriStar tanker/transports are all converted from airliners if you count them.
39 Johnny: this is what i wanted to say with peanuts and my s.... For me 212 A340s are hundreds or severals,but not less than hundreds like PM quoted... Let us k
41 KC135TopBoom: The A-330-200F seems to little, to late. It carries a 63 tonne payload 4259nm. The B-777-200F carries a 103 tone payload 4965nm. The B-767-300F carrie
42 PM: You are assuming that all operators want the greater lift and/or range. I doubt if that's the case.
44 Scbriml: Far from it - it fits comfortably below the significantly more expensive 772F but offers more capability than current A300/A310/767/DC-8 freighters.
45 Zvezda: The customers are more interested in how much fuel they burn performing those missions. Cost is the main basis for comparison, not performance. Cargo
46 Johnny: @KC135 Top Boom The A330F and B777F do not compete.They play in completely different games.Like for example a B747F and a MD11F. Johnny
47 Breiz: UPS and Airbus were in sales and contract discussions about the A380 order for quite some time. The cancellation of the A306F orders came long after
48 Scorpio: No it wasn't. It was announced at the same time as the A380 order was announced.
49 Leelaw: Really, perhaps on the part of Airbus; however, the UPS press release from January 10, 2005 would indicate otherwise: "UPS Places Order for 10 Airbus
51 Tigerotor77W: Without an immediate 767F replacement, I think Airbus has this market pretty much all to themselves, no? The A332 pretty much wins over the 767-300ER
52 A319XFW: Yes, on the left of the 3 hangars in the middle of the picture is the ATR line, then in the middle the A300 line and on the right the A320 line.
53 Widebodyphotog: Previously Airbus has stated that a commercial A330 freighter would be available no earlier than 2014... The medium freighter market has not shown arn
54 Tigerotor77W: A few informative post, widebodyphotog, as usual... your data is especially impressive. Thanks for providing it.
55 CptGermany: Actually, that would be Clement-Ader, the assembly hangar for the A340/330. I do not recall the name to the hangar which houses the A300 production l
56 Hamlet69: Widebodyphotog, I was reading through this thread, keeping track of all the points that were absolutely absurd that many members on here thought were
57 Areopagus: Thank you, Widebodyphotog. A couple of typo corrections for your chart, though. The "Cargo Loadable Height" row is labeled SQ FEET and SG METERS, when
58 N328KF: I think the point that is being made is that neither the 767F or A330F are all that desirable for cargo, and that really, the entire market segment i
59 Lightsaber: First, an excellent post as usual. However, I would ague that NW has a significant number of DC-10-30's that as soon as they can be replaced with A33
60 Widebodyphotog: I would not say moot at all... The momentum of fuel prices is putting tremendous pressure on the general freighter market driving operators to larger
61 Hamlet69: widebodyphotog, I know 15 years sounds very long, and perhaps it is. However, I personally expected a 777F about 5 years ago, so I am being conservati
62 Trex8: the 3 day cycle is immaterial, they could have a 24 hr cycle for assembly. the rate limiting factor will always be the ability of subcontractors to s
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Germany, joined Feb 2006, 86 posts, 
From France, joined Mar 2005, 1808 posts, 
From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 0 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 663 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
