LHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1368 posts, RR: 1 Posted (3 years 1 month 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4109 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.
EA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10 Reply 1, posted (3 years 1 month 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4088 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.
LHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1368 posts, RR: 1 Reply 2, posted (3 years 1 month 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4046 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?
EA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10 Reply 3, posted (3 years 1 month 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3960 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.
kaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 11951 posts, RR: 37 Reply 4, posted (3 years 1 month 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3704 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.
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.
seabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 4277 posts, RR: 4 Reply 6, posted (3 years 1 month 1 day ago) and read 3374 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.
Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
KFlyer From Sri Lanka, joined Mar 2007, 1208 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (3 years 1 month 23 hours ago) and read 3234 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.
LHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1368 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (3 years 1 month 13 hours ago) and read 2755 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.
fxramper From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 7023 posts, RR: 93 Reply 9, posted (3 years 1 month 12 hours ago) and read 2630 times:
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.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26697 posts, RR: 83 Reply 10, posted (3 years 1 month 12 hours ago) and read 2612 times:
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.
LHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1368 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (3 years 1 month 11 hours ago) and read 2440 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.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26697 posts, RR: 83 Reply 12, posted (3 years 1 month 10 hours ago) and read 2236 times:
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.
seabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 4277 posts, RR: 4 Reply 13, posted (3 years 1 month 10 hours ago) and read 2207 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.
Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
ebj1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 2 Reply 14, posted (3 years 1 month 6 hours ago) and read 1996 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.
LHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1368 posts, RR: 1 Reply 15, posted (3 years 1 month 5 hours ago) and read 1868 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.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26697 posts, RR: 83 Reply 16, posted (3 years 1 month 4 hours ago) and read 1791 times:
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) .
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26697 posts, RR: 83 Reply 18, posted (3 years 1 month 4 hours ago) and read 1675 times:
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.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1368 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 11951 posts, 
From Sri Lanka, joined Mar 2007, 1208 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
