Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Not A 787F/A350F?  
User currently offlineLPSHobby From Brazil, joined May 2007, 197 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 6612 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

why doesn´t manufactures launch cargo versions of their new projects at the same time they launch the passenger versions, like Boeing did with the 748I/F ??? development costs???

26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinetullamarine From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 6563 times:

Freight versions will come but at a later date. Both manufacturers are already stretched just doing the engineering for the pax versions.

The 748F was developed because the whole business case hung on the freighter version. As you can see, if it relied solely on the pax version the 748 it would have been canned ages ago.



717,721/2,732/3/4/5/7/8/9,742/3/4,752/3,762/3,772,W,310,320/1,332/3,388,DC9,DC10,F28,F100,142,143,E90,CR2,D82/3/4,SF3,AT
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31387 posts, RR: 85
Reply 2, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 6531 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

You also have the 777 Freighter and A330-200 Freighter entering service, absorbing orders. Operators are not going to wait years for new freighters when they need to move product now.

I kind of think we might very well not see an A350-900 and 787-8 freighter, at least before 2030. Freight operators are not going to toss their 777Fs and A332Fs and spend scores of billions more to replace them anytime soon, regardless if they have better operating economics.


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3432 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 6497 times:

Airbus claims the A350F is in thier short term plans.

Regardless I think its foolish till you get a generation or two on the plane. The 777F for example is "3rd gen" even if Boeing didn't go absolutely nuts updating the plane each time. The 777-200 has a hell of alot less performance than the 777-200LR the 777F is based on.

IMO both the A350 and 787 need to mature for atleast a decade before they think about a frieghter model. Sure they could do one now, but thats alot of money spent that will likely need to be atleast partialy redone when they update the passenger frames going into the future. Meanwhile the A330F and 777F are very good deals and would be hard to beat with the existing 787/A350 specifications.


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5828 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 6397 times:

No need for either maker to build a freighter for the moment when they have enough pax orders to fill all the production capacity they can create for many years.

User currently offlinejimbobjoe From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 661 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 6132 times:

Freighter companies don't need the newest and most efficient aircraft. Cargo aircraft (typically) spend most of their day on the tarmac. There's plenty of time for maintenance and the fuel savings is not all that substantial, in comparison to an airliner which is in flight most of its day.

Though they could use some new big planes, like the 748F.


User currently offlinemotorhussy From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 3334 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 6055 times:

Quoting jimbobjoe (Reply 5):
Freighter companies don't need the newest and most efficient aircraft.

You're absolutely right which is why...

Quoting jimbobjoe (Reply 5):
they could use some new big planes, like the 748F.

Regards
MH



come visit the south pacific
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10230 posts, RR: 97
Reply 7, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 6024 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tullamarine (Reply 1):
The 748F was developed because the whole business case hung on the freighter version. As you can see, if it relied solely on the pax version the 748 it would have been canned ages ago.

The 748 was actually launched on the expecation of 2/3 of sales being of the Intercontinental, according to Boeing.

Rgds


User currently offlineaznmadsci From United States of America, joined exactly 7 years ago today! , 3712 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 6010 times:

Not to slightly deviate from the topic, but what about considering a 77W Combi?


The journey of life is not based on the accomplishments, but the experience.
User currently offlineBA6590 From UK - England, joined Jul 2007, 132 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 5906 times:

Wasn't there a frieghter version in the original plans for the A350, IIRC it was planed as a family of 5 aircraft from the start (including a long range version and a frieghter).
Don't know if this is still case now with all the different issues Airbus is dealing with.



"Never forget, the higher we soar, the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche -
User currently offline76er From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 572 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 5815 times:

AFAIK the A359F is supposed to be next right after the -1000 enters service. IMHO timing could be perfect, since around that time many MD11s, comparable in size and range, will be nearing the end of their useful lives. Presently no other MD11 replacement is on the way. Converted 333's or T7's would probably not have the MD11's range, except for perhaps the 772ER.

We should also keep in mind that 200$-a-barrel oil is a pretty good bet at the end of this decade, further increasing the likelyhood of new built, fuel efficient freighters.

There is a pretty large capacity gap between the 332F and 77F right now, there should be room for another product that fits nicely in between.


User currently offlineRonaldo747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 395 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 5537 times:

AFAIK, at the developement of the 787, Boeing has incorporated the possibility of a converted and new build freighter derivate, e.g. things like wiring, especially around the location of the main deck cargo door. It should be comparatively easy to build a 787F.

User currently offlinemd80fanatic From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2661 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 4501 times:

Assuming the freight market will keep growing indefinitely is not wise IMO. With all the "globalization" mumbo jumbo going on, there is a better chance of manufacturing whatever people need more locally than ever before. I predict a shrinking market after about 5 more years of outstanding growth. SO why strap yourself with big payments on carbon birds while there are a thousand perfectly good metal birds sitting patiently in the desert?

People have an irrational fear of older aircraft, but boxes couldn't care less.


User currently offline76er From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 572 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 4090 times:

Quoting md80fanatic (Reply 12):
but boxes couldn't care less

Very true, but the CFO who has to pay for the fuel may think otherwise.


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31387 posts, RR: 85
Reply 14, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3931 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I'm more inclined to think the 747-8F won sales that would have been won by the 747-400F if the 777F hadn't existed.

User currently offlineCMB56 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 233 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3463 times:

The freighter version of the A380 was basically launched at the same time. Due to the well discussed delays in the Pax program of the 380 the two major customers for the F canceled their orders. With nothing on the books and problems getting the Pax version up to par Airbus has shelved the F version. Many of the high gross weight features for a stretched 380 would have been on the F version. For example the extra four brakes would have been standard on the F version. So this is a reasonably good example of it is simply too much extra engineering work to do both at the same time. For Boeing the -8F is probably dragging the -8I along with it.

User currently onlineB777LRF From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1464 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 3325 times:

Quoting 76er (Reply 10):
Presently no other MD11 replacement is on the way.

You are grammatically correct, but what you allude to is not true. There's a very fine MD-11F replacement available right now, and that's the B777F. Bit bigger, rather more expensive to buy, but you get performance and operational savings in spades.



From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
User currently offline7673mech From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 744 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 3189 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Why not get the pax models up and flying first?
Work on the kinks and then see where the cards fall.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25983 posts, RR: 22
Reply 18, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 3043 times:

Quoting motorhussy (Reply 6):
Quoting jimbobjoe (Reply 5):
Freighter companies don't need the newest and most efficient aircraft.

You're absolutely right which is why...

Then why does Cargolux operate approximately 15 factory-delivered 744Fs, and why have they ordered 13 747-8Fs to replace them?


User currently onlineAA777223 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1259 posts, RR: 6
Reply 19, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2727 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 18):
Then why does Cargolux operate approximately 15 factory-delivered 744Fs, and why have they ordered 13 747-8Fs to replace them?

I think he is speaking in generalities. You see 742Fs still flying when the vast majority of 747 classic passenger versions have left the sky and even 744s are being parked. You see 727s, DC-10s, and MD-11s all as freighters while most airlines consider them dinosaurs of 10-20 years past. All he is saying is that packages are not nearly as picky about comfort as humans, and freighters spend much more time being loaded, unloaded, and sitting than their passenger counterparts. Lower acquisition costs make older aircraft much more attractive (though not exclusively so) to freight companies than airlines, who recoup the costs more quickly.



Sic 'em bears
User currently offline413X3 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 1983 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2464 times:

A lot of freight companies that aren't forward thinking always hang on to the lowest quality and least expensive. Most of them ironically rely on US tax dollars to fly freight for the military, like Southern Air and Kalitta. The forward thinking companies buy brand new. Go down the list and almost all have a large percentage of factory fresh airplanes, Fedex UPS Atlas/Polar etc. What killed Northwest Cargo was hanging onto the old classics for too long.

User currently offlineangelmonsteral From Puerto Rico, joined exactly 5 years ago today! , 23 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2366 times:

I dont know the cost but i personally think that this could happen but we must wait a little because this happens with the time because right now they are busy making the passengers planes and in the future i think that they will consider that idea.And the normal thing is that the passengers planes come first than the cargo planes because thats what usually happens.


If you think you have discovered everything in this world,you re wrong.
User currently offline413X3 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 1983 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2304 times:

Quoting angelmonsteral (Reply 21):
And the normal thing is that the passengers planes come first than the cargo planes because thats what usually happens.

UPS is still buying brand new 747s and 767s. Cargolux is the launch customer for the 747-8F. That is wrong


User currently offlinec5load From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 917 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2132 times:

Quoting aznmadsci (Reply 8):
Not to slightly deviate from the topic, but what about considering a 77W Combi?

Or an A340F?



"But this airplane has 4 engines, it's an entirely different kind of flying! Altogether"
User currently onlineAA777223 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1259 posts, RR: 6
Reply 24, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2054 times:

Quoting c5load (Reply 23):
Or an A340F?

The only A340 that would make a sensible freighter is the A345, as it has minimal structural weight for its fuel capacity and engine thrust. This allows it to carry freight, which is denser than humans. This is why freighters are almost always based on the smallest fuselage derivatives of their type (i.e. 777-200F, A332F, etc.). You want to be hauling as little aircraft with as much thrust as you can. Cargo aircraft rarely run out of space, but max out on weight.

If you were to base such an aircraft on the A345, it would be exactly outmatched the way the A345 passenger version is outmatched by the 77L. All the same inadequacies exist between the 77F and A345. The only other aircraft in the A340 line that had smaller fuselage to thrust was the A342, which is no longer available, and is now pretty much matched in performance by the A332.

This is why there is not viable case for an A340 freighter...



Sic 'em bears
25 Stitch : But it's structural weight is very high (same with the A340-600) which leads me to believe they would not be very popular as freighters. I expect the
26 AA777223 : Did you read the rest of my post? I spent it explaining why the A345 would not make a good freighter. Thanks for agreeing with me?
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...
TU154? Why Not Junk Them All? posted Wed Apr 14 2010 01:21:39 by VC10er
Concorde At DFW -- Why Not An Ocean Routing? posted Sun Apr 11 2010 19:34:30 by rolypolyman
US And CO Crew Base At LAX-Why Not? posted Sun Apr 11 2010 15:28:43 by caleb1
SAA 203 Why Not Route Thru CPT? posted Sun Apr 4 2010 08:23:51 by xzavierrsa
767 LN 718 - Why Not Built? posted Fri Feb 19 2010 01:35:44 by FlyCaledonian
Why Not More EK DXB-America Flights? posted Sat Feb 6 2010 15:37:51 by Aeolus
Why Not Many Aircraft Graveyards? posted Wed Jan 20 2010 12:31:04 by Lxmd11
CFM56-7BE - Question Why Not -5X Upgrade? posted Wed Jan 13 2010 11:14:09 by Brucek
PER To PEK/PVG: Why Not Direct? posted Tue Jan 12 2010 19:11:14 by Ben175
Why Not A 2x2x2 NB For A320/B737 Replacement? posted Wed Jan 6 2010 18:39:55 by Morrisond