Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 32722 posts, RR: 85
Reply 2, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 6752 times:
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.
XT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3503 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 6718 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.
jimbobjoe From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 668 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (5 years 2 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 6353 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.
astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10644 posts, RR: 97
Reply 7, posted (5 years 2 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 6245 times:
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.
BA6590 From UK - England, joined Jul 2007, 133 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (5 years 2 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 6127 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.
76er From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 599 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (5 years 2 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 6036 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.
Ronaldo747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 417 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (5 years 2 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 5758 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.
md80fanatic From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2792 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (5 years 2 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 4722 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.
CMB56 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 235 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (5 years 2 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3684 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.
B777LRF From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1616 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (5 years 2 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3546 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
AA777223 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1298 posts, RR: 6
Reply 19, posted (5 years 2 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2948 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.
413X3 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 1983 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (5 years 2 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2685 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.
angelmonsteral From Puerto Rico, joined Dec 2009, 23 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (5 years 2 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2587 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.
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
: 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
: 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?