Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Cargo On 777 X A340-500  
User currently offlineTP727 From Brazil, joined May 2005, 136 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 6045 times:

Hope you all read this in good shape, healthy and happy.

I have read in here many times that the A340-500 is not as efficient as the 777s, and also that JJ using it (i know it's only a temporary measure, while they get the 77Ws) on GRU-FRA is not taking the best out of teir acft.
My question to you is: Considering the A340-500 and a 777-200ER on the same route (GRU-FRA), with the same cabin configuration and the same seats (models, wheights), how much more cargo would the boeing be able to take over the airbus? Also, if i am not bothering anyone, the same question on the 777-200 LR.

The best to all of you.

Gilson

21 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineSwallow From Uganda, joined Jul 2007, 557 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (7 years 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 6006 times:

Belly cargo capacity:

345: 32 LD3 containers/11 pallets and MTOW of 820,100 lb

772: 32 LD3 containers and MTOW of 656,000 lb

The 345 does not look too shabby, but I am no loadmaster!



The grass is greener where you water it
User currently offlinePnwtraveler From Canada, joined Jun 2007, 2296 posts, RR: 12
Reply 2, posted (7 years 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 5925 times:

You have to compare a 77L and a 77W with the 345 not just the base 777.

77LR 766,000 lbs (347,450 kg)
77W 775,000 lbs (351,534 kg)

What is missing from your comparison is the operating weights. The amount of actual cargo you can put on the aircraft with full fuel and passenger load. The 777 are more fuel efficient so carry less fuel. All I know is that AC is using less fuel and carrying more cargo with no penalties on the 77W and 77L as compared to the A345.


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9229 posts, RR: 76
Reply 3, posted (7 years 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 5859 times:

Over that "short" 5500 nm sector, the 772ER, 772LR, and A345 should carry maximum structural payload, which is about the same for all 3 types, at around 120,000 - 135,000 lb.

The actual maximum structural payload number will depend on the what the airline is paying for in terms of MTOW/MZFW/MLW and thrust ratings.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31412 posts, RR: 85
Reply 4, posted (7 years 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 5790 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting TP727 (Thread starter):
Considering the A340-500 and a 777-200ER on the same route (GRU-FRA), with the same cabin configuration and the same seats (models, wheights), how much more cargo would the boeing be able to take over the airbus?

The A345 actually has the advantage,

The average maximum payload for the A345 is 60,000kgs.

For the 77E, the average maximum payload is 57,000kgs.

On a 5500nm sector, I do not believe either plane is MTOW-limited so they would be able to haul their maximum payload and the necessary fuel. *

As such, the A345 would haul 3000kg more.


* - For the life of me, I cannot make sense of Boeing's Payload-Range charts, so I may be wrong about that. Airbus' are much clearer - at least to me - so the A345's chart makes it look like it's no problem.


User currently offlineCaboclo From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 203 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (7 years 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 5662 times:

Slightly off topic, but it's all a moot point because Airbus does not build a 340F. For some reason, they have never given much consideration to cargo, even as Boeing is building and selling 767Fs, 777Fs and 748Fs. Instead, Airbus only offered the old A300 until recently, when they shut down the line and went out of the cargo business entirely, until such time as they get the 330F built. One wonders where their stock would be today if they had been offering a complete range of freighters over the past decade. As the previous posts show, the 340 is a decent airplane, and most would agree that the 330 is a very good one; seems to me like Airbus has ignored a pretty significant market.


Freight dogs have more fun
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31412 posts, RR: 85
Reply 6, posted (7 years 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 5633 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Caboclo (Reply 5):
One wonders where their stock would be today if they had been offering a complete range of freighters over the past decade.

Well Airbus has not had too much of a problem stuffing their assembly lines with passenger models, so I am not sure they saw a freighter variant as a big deal.

Even the 777 went over a decade before it launched a freighter model.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 7, posted (7 years 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 5537 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):
Well Airbus has not had too much of a problem stuffing their assembly lines with passenger models, so I am not sure they saw a freighter variant as a big deal.

Even the 777 went over a decade before it launched a freighter model.

Doesn't Boeing have that same problem, their lines stuffed full of passenger jets?  Yeah sure

Yet, they have also been selling the B-767-300ERF, B-747-400F and B-747-400ERF very well over the past 10 years.

They didn't need a B-777-200LRF until now. Airbus didn't introduce the A-330-200F until after they closed their A-300-600F line, and Boeing introduced the B-777F. Now Boeing also has the B-747-8F selling very well.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31412 posts, RR: 85
Reply 8, posted (7 years 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 5480 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 7):
Doesn't Boeing have that same problem, their lines stuffed full of passenger jets?

The only reason the 747 line has remained open past 2003 is because of the 747-400[ER]F.

And the 767-300F has helped keep the 767 line going, as well. If it was just the 767-200ER and 767-300ER, Boeing likely would have closed the line (as they did with the 757, which had no freighter model).

[Edited 2007-11-29 10:28:24]

User currently offlineKappel From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, RR: 17
Reply 9, posted (7 years 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 5452 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
as they did with the 757, which had no freighter model

Actually it did, the 757PF. But that was jsut a parcel freighter and apparantly the parcel companies had no use for more of those.



L1011,733,734,73G,738,743,744,752,763,772,77W,DC855,DC863,DC930,DC950,MD11,MD88,306,319,320,321,343,346,ARJ85,CR7,E195
User currently offlineFuturecaptain From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (7 years 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 5411 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
(as they did with the 757, which had no freighter model).



Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
Actually it did, the 757PF.

 checkmark  And 80 of them were built by Boeing, mostly for UPS. And now Fed Ex is converting pax 757's to freighters. The 757 most definately has a F model.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31412 posts, RR: 85
Reply 11, posted (7 years 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 5381 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Kappel (Reply 9):
Actually it did, the 757PF. But that was jsut a parcel freighter and apparantly the parcel companies had no use for more of those.

I knew there were 757 package freighters, but assumed they were all conversions (the 757-200SF). I didn't know (until now) that Boeing offered a factory model (the 757-200PF).

Learn something new every day.  thumbsup 


User currently offlineDynkrisolo From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1866 posts, RR: 7
Reply 12, posted (7 years 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 5267 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
The A345 actually has the advantage,

Incorrect

Quote:

The average maximum payload for the A345 is 60,000kgs.

from http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfam...0a340/a340-500/specifications.html

The 380t A345 has a maximum structural payload of 57.2t or 126.1 klbs (MZFW - OEW)

Quote:

For the 77E, the average maximum payload is 57,000kgs.

That would be for the GE model.

from http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/7772sec2.pdf

The Rolls powered ones with 632.5 klb MTOW have a maximum payload of 59.4t, 131 klbs.

FWIW, the relevant comparison is not the 77E. It should be the 77L.

from http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/777rsec2.pdf

The 768 klb 77L has a maximum structural payload of 64t or 141 klbs.

Quote:

As such, the A345 would haul 3000kg more.

A345 would haul 7t less than the 77L. At best, parity with GE powered 77E or 2t less than Rolls powered 77E.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31412 posts, RR: 85
Reply 13, posted (7 years 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 5217 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Dynkrisolo (Reply 12):
The 380t A345 has a maximum structural payload of 57.2t or 126.1 klbs (MZFW - OEW)

I went with the A345 ACAP which shows five variants with MST's of:

  • 54,630kg [WV000]
  • 59,630kg [WV001]
  • 58,630kg [WV002]
  • 61,630kg [WV101]
  • 59,630kg [WV102]


For an average of 58,830kg.

As to the 777 ACAP, I used those figures, as well, but didn't catch the "GE" part. I admit I was surprised at what I thought was a single listing for all 77Es, regardless of engine choice. Now I know why.  Smile

So we have:

  • 56,940kg [GE]
  • 57,980kg [PW]
  • 59,430kg [RR]


For an average of 58,116kg.

So it's a wash.


User currently offlineWidebodyphotog From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 917 posts, RR: 67
Reply 14, posted (7 years 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 5173 times:



Quoting Swallow (Reply 1):
Belly cargo capacity:

345: 32 LD3 containers/11 pallets and MTOW of 820,100 lb

772: 32 LD3 containers and MTOW of 656,000 lb

The 345 does not look too shabby, but I am no loadmaster!

Actually the A340-500 has a maximum capacity of 30 LD3, 18 FWD and 12 AFT...

777-200ER 32 LD3 18 FWD and 14 AFT
777-300ER 44 LD3 24 FWD and 20 AFT

The question of efficiency is answered not only by how much you can carry but what it cost you to carry it on a specific basis. Yes in a simple analysis MZFW is available but that is not the entire story. Realistically that small difference in capacity is significant and here is how.

First in terms of cargo you have to consider the useful volume after passenger baggage. Lets take TAM as an example. Their A340-500s have 267 seats. If there are no lower ULD hold crew rest a calculation of baggage space required at 100% Load Factor would be as follows 267 pax X 1.3 bags per pax = 347 bags. Assuming that baggage is loaded into LD3s, a typical LD3 is capable of containing up to 37 bags per unit. 347 bags / 37 bags per container yields 9 LD3s needed with 14 bags left that can go in the bulk. From the available ULD configurations a 6 Pallet 12 LD3 configuration will satisfy our space requirements. This configuration, using M size pallets, would leave 6 Pallets and 3 LD3 for cargo use after baggage is loaded. The useable cargo volume is nominally 81 cubic meters using rectangular counrour for the pallets and full contour for the LD3s. Given the realities of cargo space utilization the best hope would be for 80% of the maximum volume to be utilized even when all available ULD are loaded with cargo. This gives us a total loaded volume of 65 cubic meters.

Now the average density of lower deck general market cargo is around 155 Kg per cubic meter these days. 155 Kg/cum X 65 cum gives us 10,075 KG of gross cargo weight the ULD tare of 930 Kg works out to a gross cargo load in ULD of 11,005 KG for the Airbus. Added in with a full pax load of 25,400 KG including baggage tare gives us a total traffic load of 36,400 KG well under maximum payload for the route/flight time effective distance.

Now quickly through the numbers for the 777-200ER and 777-300ER with relative seating.

777-200ER/-200LR
270 pax
351 bags
9 X LD3 bulk baggage
ULD Config 7 Pallets 10 LD3
Cargo Config 7 Pallets 1 LD3
Cargo Max Volume 84.5 cum
Practical cargo Volume load 67.5 cum
Net Cargo payload 10,500 Kg
Gross Cargo Payload 11,300 Kg
Total traffic load 37,000 Kg

777-300ER
305 pax
397 bags
11 X LD3 bag use
ULD Config 10 Pallets 3 LD3
Cargo Max Volume 127 cum
Practical cargo Volume load 101.5 cum
Net Cargo payload 15,700 Kg
Gross Cargo Payload 17,100 Kg
Total traffic load 46,000 Kg

Now that we have the loads lets look at efficiency

For cargo on passenger airplanes the incremental cost of operation basically boils down to the fuel used for the extra payload. At the specified range and this week's Singapore spot market price for Jet A the cost for carrying a single kilo of cargo would be as follows in US Cents.

A340-500: 39
777-200ER: 41
777-200LR: 37
777-300ER: 38

This is only reflective of the cost in fuel to carry a kilogram of payload over and above the given passenger load. To bring things full circle, how much more could a 777-200ER/-200LR carry vs an A340-500 over a generic 5,500nm effective air distance? About 4-6% more in practical terms and the 777-300ER would do better by more than 50% against the rest. In terms of the efficiency at carrying the excess payload basically a wash between the 777-200ER/-200LR and A340-500 as any small percentage fluctuation in space utilization would defeat the differences in fuel necessary to carry the extra load. As far as the operator is really concerned they will take the extra space always, every time. To the cargo side it does not make sense to give up space for anything so the 777-200ER/LR wins by a nose in that analysis.




-widebodyphotog



If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
User currently offlineSpeedbird128 From Pitcairn Islands, joined Oct 2003, 1648 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (7 years 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4895 times:



Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 14):
777-300ER
305 pax

That's really low for a -300ER. EY operate 378pax at 9 abreast in Y, and EK in the range of -410 with 10 abreast in Y. This doesn't count crew.



A306, A313, A319, A320, A321, A332, A343, A345, A346 A388, AC90, B06, B722, B732, B733, B735, B738, B744, B762, B772, B7
User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4871 posts, RR: 14
Reply 16, posted (7 years 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4868 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

NH 247
CX 306
BR 316
SQ 278
AC 349
AF 313
JL 292


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3432 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (7 years 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 4689 times:



Quoting Speedbird128 (Reply 15):
That's really low for a -300ER. EY operate 378pax at 9 abreast in Y, and EK in the range of -410 with 10 abreast in Y.

Yes, clearly picking two of the highest density configurations is a good way to express the typical configuration........

uhg.


User currently offlineWidebodyphotog From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 917 posts, RR: 67
Reply 18, posted (7 years 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 4480 times:



Quoting Trex8 (Reply 16):
NH 247
CX 306
BR 316
SQ 278
AC 349
AF 313
JL 292

 checkmark 



If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
User currently offlineTP727 From Brazil, joined May 2005, 136 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (7 years 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 4287 times:

Hello everyone,

Thank you for taking the time to reply. I am sorry i was unable to get back to you sooner.
In my point of view the GRU-FRA route would be more cost efficient if served with a 777-200ER, since it would burn less fuel. But on th other hand the lower cost to aquire the plane might make it work for the higher operating cost.

Wish you all a nice weekend.

TP727


User currently offlineKappel From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, RR: 17
Reply 20, posted (7 years 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 4186 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
Learn something new every day.

The beauty of A.net  Smile I learned so much from A.netters from the industry.
I'm actually surprised you didn't know. Mostly you are pretty well informed...



L1011,733,734,73G,738,743,744,752,763,772,77W,DC855,DC863,DC930,DC950,MD11,MD88,306,319,320,321,343,346,ARJ85,CR7,E195
User currently offlineNcfc99 From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 752 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (7 years 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4162 times:

widebodyphotog

As usual, thanks for a great informative post.


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...
Questions On The A340-500/600 posted Thu Jun 3 2004 03:03:24 by CO737800
What Seat Pitches F, C And Economy On EK A340-500? posted Wed Feb 18 2004 11:12:17 by KEESJE
PTV On SQ A340-500 posted Tue Jan 27 2004 13:16:04 by Flumuc
Seat Pitch/Width On EK A340-500 J-Class? posted Wed Nov 19 2003 18:53:15 by ZSSNC
Want To Fly Long Flights On The A340-500? posted Sun Feb 17 2002 22:36:55 by Airplanetire
Engine Choice On The A340-500/600 posted Thu Mar 22 2001 06:14:24 by A330-243
A340-500 Cargo Capacity: 0.7 Tonnes! posted Fri Mar 25 2005 12:46:38 by OD-BWH
A340-500 Vs. 777-200LR, SIN-LAX posted Fri Dec 10 2004 07:00:59 by Clickhappy
NWA Boeing 777-300ER Or Airbus A340-500/600? posted Fri Feb 27 2004 15:29:03 by KEESJE
SQ A340-500 On BBC World: FASTTrack posted Fri Oct 31 2003 15:40:26 by Andrew