As a loadmaster on the MD-11 and 747-400F I can say that I am very happy that I won't ever touch the A330F. There is no room to walk the sides of your cargo load. Being that it is so tight you will have a tough time accommodating all of the C.A.O. freight that must be accessible. Also, the contours look absolutely vicious. Seems like this plane is destined to be loaded with AAY's rather than palletized cargo, which will make a lot of operators hate it. Anyone have more info on this bird?
Nice Trip Report!!! Great Pics, thanks for posting!!!! B747Forever
teva From France, joined Jan 2001, 1876 posts, RR: 15
Reply 2, posted (5 years 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 18231 times:
Here, you can see 2 examples of configurations.
With the 96*125 in the back, you have 2 corridors, left and right.
With the 2 88 side by side, there is no more corridor. All the space is used , which is good for the operator. (it is expensive to carry air "by air". (reason why Fx does not use 747s, for instance)
BTW, have you ever loaded the following freighters: 757s, 737s, or older 727s and DC8s?
There is no corridor .
And every day, you have hundreds of planes like this flying, with no problem. So basically, airlines and loadmaster can live with it.
Do you prefer to be loadmaster on a bulk loaded An124, or Il76? I have seen some in DXB, loaded with small boxes. Truly amazing. And once loaded, no corridor...
Not all the planes give you the comfort of a 747. But at least, they do what airlines are expecting from them. And I am pertty sure that after a few flights, you will have no problem loading A330s
Ecoute les orgues, Elles jouent pour toi...C'est le requiem pour un con
lotsamiles From United States of America, joined May 2005, 323 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (5 years 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 17890 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 1): Any idea of how this compares to a 767-300F using 96x125" pallets?
The A330F can do 96" ULD's side by side, whereas the 767 can go only 88" wide side by side (SBS).
The A300 and A310 freighters flying around today have 88" SBS only, I believe the 96" SBS was a very recent "upgrade" to the program.
The usefulness of the 96" SBS will be up to each operator, certainly it offers compatibility to the 747F, etc. However, as the OP notes, the contouring will be very restrictive and mistakes will lead to punctured liners, etc. that may cause delays.
Thanks for the info Teva. The MD-11 in an 88X108 is a tight fight as well. Fortunately the military doesn't tend to have tall freight, so we are able to get where we need to go on the plane. Can it only do one 88X108? The MD-11 takes two, but then there is no corridor.
Quoting teva (Reply 2): Do you prefer to be loadmaster on a bulk loaded An124, or Il76?
Haven't been a loadmaster for either of them, but I can tell you that I would much rather be on the 124 due to the IL76 reeking like an open pit toilet.
Nice Trip Report!!! Great Pics, thanks for posting!!!! B747Forever
SeaBosDca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 6069 posts, RR: 6
Reply 15, posted (5 years 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 16503 times:
Quoting N328KF (Reply 14): But we know they love the 777F. Three in service, 29 more to come, and 15 options. Who knows, they might decide that this will be a good option to replace their DC-10s.
The 777F is the right aircraft for the long hauls, but its capability is totally wasted on the short domestic routes that keep the MD-10 busy most of the time. Rather than buying new 777Fs, the company could either save massively on acquisition costs and get used 777s, or save massively on operating costs and get A330s -- with little loss in capability for the mission. Unless there's something I don't know, buying 777Fs for use on short routes would be throwing money out a window.
NicoEDDF From Germany, joined Jan 2008, 1133 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (5 years 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 16432 times:
Quoting wjcandee (Reply 12): One reason the 737 has been only marginally-used as a freighter in the US is the lack of distance between the front of the wing and the rear of the cargo door, making it vulnerable to ramp rash.
Or maybe because the 737 was just in performance figures not the best freighter overall?
Quoting wjcandee (Reply 12): If folks work "carefully and professional[ly[", the thing is fine. If they don't -- oops, we're out of service.
At least the cargo haulers I know do work carefully and profesionally. You might not believe it but they can actually load and unload the aircraft without destroying the frame frequently. They do it in FRA as well as in LEJ, in JNB and in NBO and whereever I can think of.
But then again, may we just work more professional in German airlines?
Und das nächste Mal weise ich dich in die Spezifika des deutschen Adverbs ein, Freund William.
Auch westlich vom Pond sollt ihr schließlich flüssig Fremdsprachen lernen!
I have some great shots from NBO where some of those amazing loaders ripped a light out of my lower deck ceiling. I also have pick of them loading pallets of flowers that were so out of contour that they ripped the gil liner out of the plane as well. Loaders screw up everywhere. I watched a load crew put a 20ft pallet through the wall on a GSS 744 last night. Thankfully it was not my plane, so I just walked away and told the mechanic to get a patch kit. I have seen idiocy beyond imagine from loading crews all over the world, that even includes the precious fatherland, but the worst of the worst tends to happen in West Africa.
When was the last time you walked beside the underfloor cargo load on a MD-11F or 747F ?
Quoting fxramper (Reply 3):
FX will entertain the idea so they get a great deal with Boeing to replace aging MD10.
The 767ERF is about a 50% reduction in cash operating cost per tonne over a DC-10-30SF with reduced volume, and about 16 tonnes less mass capability, and less range. The A330-200F is about a 70% reduction for the same volume, and same payload mass, and same range, or better.
I assume so, I have seen configurations where they have two vehicle side by side on the main deck.
Quoting fxramper (Reply 20):
A lot of domestic markets that use the MD10 are underutilized. The gurus might like a full 76F vs a 75% full MD10.
That is true in terms of economics, but a full 763ERF is not a 75% load of a MD-10. I think depending on the ULD/pallets being used, the 332F and MD-10 takes exactly the same number (i.e. same volume), plus the have the same payload mass capability, with around a 70% reduction in cost.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
Can the 767F fit AYY + AMJ as is done on A300/A310?
I think A330P2F + A330-200F would make a great fleet for FedEx to replace DC-10 + MD-10.
Quoting PanAm788 (Reply 22): How can they do that? They are all the same fuselage width. Gaining 16'' in width even with an upgrade is a bit unbelievable to me
767F is 24 inches narrower than an A330, which translates generally into 1 extra seat cross-wise for the A330 vs the 767 (8 vs 7) and the ability to load 96" pallets side-by-side when the 767F is limited to 88" pallets side-by-side.
: This is where I see a the business case for an A333F - routes needing 777F-like capacity but not the range. IMO, it's only a matter of time before Ai
: The 88" SBS left a small aisle between the ULD and the fuselage. With the 96" SBS there is barely any room. They simply did not use all of the availa
: Indeed! You know what? I don't doubt that people screw all over the world loading airplanes. But your ridiculous argument was, that more empty (waste
: Get used to it, you could be working them in the next couple of years........
: The A330F is the same size to work than A300F and i have not hear any complaint it being too small to work with..When working with freight many years
: More 777Fs? That'd be sweet. How is FX liking the 777F?
: That would make a lot of sense, especially for older, lower-weight A333s. Those aircraft would make ideal short-range freighters for operators like F
: As I said previously, they have exercised 15 options into orders, added 15 more options, and are acquiring two existing orders, from Air France. They