Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Could The 77W End Up As The Next MD11F?  
User currently offlineLHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1618 posts, RR: 2
Posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 4993 times:

First off, I realize obviously that the 777 has been muh more successful. But, given how well the 77W especially seems to do with belly cargo (IIRC doesn't it carry more than a 747?), does it have a bright future as another popular cargo plane? I chose the MD11 for comparison because I seem to remember it's popularity in the role being due to it's own very good cargo capabilities.

18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineEA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10
Reply 1, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 4972 times:

Quoting LHCVG (Thread starter):
First off, I realize obviously that the 777 has been muh more successful. But, given how well the 77W especially seems to do with belly cargo (IIRC doesn't it carry more than a 747?), does it have a bright future as another popular cargo plane? I chose the MD11 for comparison because I seem to remember it's popularity in the role being due to it's own very good cargo capabilities.

No. Although the 77W is fantastic at carrying belly cargo, it wouldn't be nearly as good of a freighter as the 77F, thus the replacement for the MD11F is the 77F.



We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
User currently offlineLHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1618 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 4930 times:

Quoting EA772LR (Reply 1):
it wouldn't be nearly as good of a freighter as the 77F, thus the replacement for the MD11F is the 77F.

Is that due to the 77F being able to fill volume and weight, whereas the W will reach payload max wt. before the whole upper deck is filled, or does the 77F have some other modifications?


User currently offlineEA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10
Reply 3, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 4844 times:

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 2):
Is that due to the 77F being able to fill volume and weight, whereas the W will reach payload max wt. before the whole upper deck is filled, or does the 77F have some other modifications?

Yeah I believe you are correct. Take the A333 for example. Airbus could have made the A333 a freighter as well, but they chose to make the A332 the freighter because of this, and the payload/range delta is much better on the 772/A332 sized planes vs. their larger siblings.



We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12565 posts, RR: 35
Reply 4, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 4588 times:

I wonder how long it will be before we see Boeing offering a freighter conversion programme for older 777s; I guess it'll have to be ERs, rather than the older A models, to make it worthwhile from a range point of view.

I guess that since the eldest 777s are still only 14-15 years old, it will be a few years before airlines start phasing them out (although I know that some, like SQ, have) and seriously consider their future as freighters.


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13440 posts, RR: 100
Reply 5, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 4280 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting kaitak (Reply 4):
I wonder how long it will be before we see Boeing offering a freighter conversion programme for older 777s;

Boeing is working on the concept and some details now for the older 772's/77E's.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ch-of-777-converted-freighter.html

It is time due to the improved range of the A333 as well as the age of some airframes.

I do not see a 77WBCF for a while. They are too valuable in passenger duty for now.

Quoting LHCVG (Thread starter):
does it have a bright future as another popular cargo plane?

In the long term. But as part of the 77WBCF kit, Boeing will have to figure out a way to increase payload weight. For the package freighters, a 77WBCF would work well at the current payload weights, but not for the general freight market.

I think Boeing will come up with something... there will be enough frames out there for conversion.  

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5768 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 4258 times:

Quoting kaitak (Reply 4):
I guess it'll have to be ERs, rather than the older A models, to make it worthwhile from a range point of view.

Don't be so sure. There is still a market for short-range, high-capacity freighters, within North America and Asia. I can think of at least one good example: a 777-200ABCF would be a perfect MD-10-10 replacement for FX.


User currently offlineKFlyer From Sri Lanka, joined Mar 2007, 1230 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 4118 times:

IMHO, 772s ( ER/non-ER ) could be having the best potential as future converted freighters. 77L is pretty much a niche aircraft and 77W will likely not be popular as a freighter. I believe it will be at least 5 years away when converted 777s are flying.


The opinions above are solely my own and do not express those of my employers or clients.
User currently offlineLHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1618 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3639 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 5):
In the long term. But as part of the 77WBCF kit, Boeing will have to figure out a way to increase payload weight. For the package freighters, a 77WBCF would work well at the current payload weights, but not for the general freight market.

I guess I should have specificed here, since I was envisioning that as the use for them. I figured that as a bulk freight carrier it would run into the mass/volume problem.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 6):
Don't be so sure. There is still a market for short-range, high-capacity freighters, within North America and Asia. I can think of at least one good example: a 777-200ABCF would be a perfect MD-10-10 replacement for FX.

My thoughts exactly. It occurred to me that the timing actually seems to work out rather well, with the first 777s probably becoming available in any quantity about the time that MD10 and MD11 freighters are finally on their last legs.


User currently offlinefxramper From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 7323 posts, RR: 85
Reply 9, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3514 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 6):
777-200ABCF would be a perfect MD-10-10 replacement for FX.

Currently, there is still a marker filed with the SEC by FX that discloses limited information that the company is still actively pursuing a 777xxx BCF with Boeing.  


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31259 posts, RR: 85
Reply 10, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3496 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I agree the 777-300ER is just too large to make an effective freighter, unless we're talking low-density, high-volume cargo like packages and flowers.

Converted 777-200ERs look like they will make a solid MD-11F replacement. Based on Boeing's projections, it will offer similar cargo volumes and fly similar design distances. It will come up about 10 tons short on payload weight, but this won't be a problem for MD-11F operators like FX and 5X who fly lower cargo densities and tend to "cube out" before they reach MZFW. And the 777 Freighter will be the choice of MD-11F operators who need to maximize payload weight or who wish to start non-stop services between Asia and the Americas and Europe.


User currently offlineLHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1618 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3324 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
Converted 777-200ERs look like they will make a solid MD-11F replacement. Based on Boeing's projections, it will offer similar cargo volumes and fly similar design distances. It will come up about 10 tons short on payload weight, but this won't be a problem for MD-11F operators like FX and 5X who fly lower cargo densities and tend to "cube out" before they reach MZFW. And the 777 Freighter will be the choice of MD-11F operators who need to maximize payload weight or who wish to start non-stop services between Asia and the Americas and Europe.

So how does this play when we distinguish between new-build 77Fs and converted 77x? I'm not familiar with the costs of converting a pax plane to cargo config or where the crossover is between a cheap to buy 77A from the desert that needs converting and would suffer a range penalty and a new-build freighter that could fly to Asia, for instance.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31259 posts, RR: 85
Reply 12, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3120 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 11):
So how does this play when we distinguish between new-build 77Fs and converted 77x?

A 777 Freighter will lift about 25 tons more and fly that 100+ ton payload 2000 kilometers farther. So for those carriers who are flying their MD-11Fs near MZFW with 90 ton loads, the 777 Freighter might be the better choice. FX likes the 777 Freighter because they can fly fully loaded (at least in terms of volume) from China direct to their MEM and IND hubs, bypassing the tech stop in ANC.

I could see the 777-200BCF and 777-200ERBCF fitting into FX's fleet to replace the MD-11Fs on regional missions in Asia, the Americas and Europe as well as flights between PVG and ANC and CDG and MEM/IND.


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5768 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3091 times:

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 11):
So how does this play when we distinguish between new-build 77Fs and converted 77x?

In addition to what Stitch said... think of the 777-200ERBCF and the 777F "bracketing" the MD-11F in terms of payload (weight) capacity and range. The 777-200ERBCF will save on operating costs for those operators who don't use the MD-11F to its full potential, while the 777F has more raw capability than the MD-11F for those who need it.


User currently offlineebj1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2880 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
I agree the 777-300ER is just too large to make an effective freighter, unless we're talking low-density, high-volume cargo like packages and flowers.

Doesn't Fed Ex or UPS cargo consist mostly of low density stuff? I'm asking 'cause I really don't know. However, if most cargo flights are largely high density stuff, I now know why the 767-400 wouldn't have made it as a freighter ... though I'd love to have seen it just the same.



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineLHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1618 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2752 times:

Quoting ebj1248650 (Reply 14):
Doesn't Fed Ex or UPS cargo consist mostly of low density stuff? I'm asking 'cause I really don't know. However, if most cargo flights are largely high density stuff, I now know why the 767-400 wouldn't have made it as a freighter ... though I'd love to have seen it just the same.

From what I gather that is the general consensus (that FX and 5X max out volume before weight, hence why the 380F was on the table), whereas most "cargo" carriers have the opposite problem carrying heavy machinery and such.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31259 posts, RR: 85
Reply 16, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2675 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ebj1248650 (Reply 14):
Doesn't Fed Ex or UPS cargo consist mostly of low density stuff?

I've heard ranges from 128kg per cubic meter to 140kg per cubic meter depending on the source. This compares to
"general market" cargo density is around 160kg/m3 (the stuff moved by folks like Atlas and such using 747 freighters) .


User currently offline413X3 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 1983 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2661 times:

Is it possible to throw out a random load weight for a 744F UPS and 777F FedEx flight? Would be interesting to know

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31259 posts, RR: 85
Reply 18, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2559 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 413X3 (Reply 17):
Is it possible to throw out a random load weight for a 744F UPS and 777F FedEx flight?

In their press release for their 777 Freighter order, FX noted their MD-11Fs usually fly at 73.5 tons and they expect to operate their 777Fs at 77.5 ton payloads.


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...
Is The DHL/UPS Tie-up The End Of ABX & Astar? posted Wed May 28 2008 05:52:19 by JohnClipper
Will The A380 End Up Being Stretched? posted Thu May 22 2003 04:49:24 by Jean Leloup
AA To End Up "World's Biggest" In The End! posted Fri Jan 3 2003 04:49:44 by Sllevin
End Of The Road For Paramount? posted Wed Mar 31 2010 05:23:09 by Cricket
The Possible End Of AA DealFinder? posted Mon Mar 15 2010 12:03:44 by FWAERJ
Why Didn't Boeing Beef Up The 763ER Along W/764ER? posted Fri Feb 19 2010 12:57:36 by ea772lr
A340 600 End Of The Sales Orders /line In 2010 posted Thu Jan 14 2010 05:12:12 by Corernagh14
Chunnel Closed - Can Airlines Pick Up The Slack? posted Sun Dec 20 2009 22:15:01 by SSTsomeday
Il96 (pax) - End Of The Road posted Tue Aug 11 2009 10:22:30 by RIX
The End Of The Road...Jamaican Thread #17 posted Fri Jul 17 2009 21:46:35 by HummingBird