Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
777F's On The Horizon  
User currently offlineNavion From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1010 posts, RR: 1
Posted (14 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1197 times:

Alan Mullaly of Boeing said the 777 would make an incredible freighter and he thinks it will come to pass sooner rather than later. What a beast the 777F will be!!! How about a 777-300XF?!!!! The volume alone is stunning not to mention how far it can haul the load. And as we all know, airlines are more willing to make a fuel stop with freighters (such as Anchorage for crossing the Pacific) since there are no passengers to complain. Imagine the tonnage a 777-200XF or -300XF could carry if you allow a fuel stop?!!! Those birds would be stuffed to the gills. I can't wait to see them come down the pike. I know I haven't discussed lower gross weight versions for domestic carriers but I like the heavyweight international stuff.

13 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineKaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12328 posts, RR: 35
Reply 1, posted (14 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1030 times:

Yes, I think the surprise here is that they took so long to come up with it. Of course, the reason was the MD11 was in the way. Now that this aircraft is out of the way, it's only a matter of time before the 777F comes along and yes, I do agree, it would be very exciting. I can think of a lot of Asian airlines - Korean Air, SIA, Cathay, Malaysia, to name 4 - who would probably be interested. United seems to have set the ball rolling, as it wants a DC10F replacement, and has actually challenged Boeing to do this.
There's lots of discussions about new types, but I would see this as being pretty much a certainty . . .


User currently offlineA340-500 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (14 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1028 times:

on the same thought, what about an A340-500/600 freighter? they would have higher capacity than the 777 and a longer range. even though their fueslage cross-section is several inches narrower than the 777, they make it up in length by being able to hold several more LD3s after the stretch.

User currently offlineNavion From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1010 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (14 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1024 times:

Good points A340-500 except I think the 777-200X/-300X have more payload/range than their respective A340-500/600 counterparts according to Aviation Week & Space Technology. However, I think the A340-600 would be a great load hauler as it has the internal volume (since freighters tend to "gross out" before they "cube out") and the thrust to do a great job. I would like to see the A340-600F soon. I don't think the narrower fuselage of the A340 would be a problem as the standard freight pallets already fit the A300 cross-section.

User currently offlineWilliam From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 1240 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (14 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1011 times:

The only problem is,and you Boeing fans this something to think about. What the 777 freighter would do to the 747 freighter in stealing sales. I agree,the 777 would be an excellent freighter,and now is the time,since the alot of the 20 and 30 year old airframes the aircargo companies have now are increasing in maintenance. We see a shift to newer airframes,example DHL leasing the 757s.


User currently offlineRavi From Singapore, joined Oct 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (14 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1004 times:

The A340-500 does not carry more LD-3 containers than the 777-200ER. The extra two container positions gained by slightly increasing the fuselage length are taken up by the larger wing chord and a larger centre fuel tank. As such the A340-500 LD-3 count remains at 32, same as the A340-300.

Also, the floor space of the A340-500 is with a few square feet of the floor space available on a 777-200ER. The cabin volume is still in favour of the Boeing. However, neither aircraft is capable of carrying two 8x8ft containers side-by-side as the 747F is capable of.

The point that the 777F may "take" sales from the 747F is a good one. However, with the MD-11 going out of production and airlines willing to operate an 80-90 tonne payload freighter, it is only a matter of time before Airbus begins to offer its A340s as freighters. By launching the 777F Boeing can get a jump on Airbus, and also maintain 747F sales to airlines who need the extra 20 or so tonnes of payload.

UAL requires up to 10 777Fs, and AFR is listed as a possible customer for the airframe.


User currently offlineCiro From Brazil, joined Aug 1999, 662 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (14 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1003 times:

Unfortunately I have to disagree. I don't think it is economically feasible for any airline to buy a 150-million dollar plus aircraft to fly cargo. It is like buying a Mercedes-Benz car to deliver pizzas. Come on you guys... Where is the common sense?


The fastest way to become a millionaire in the airline business is to start as a billionaire.
User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4445 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (14 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1001 times:

It has been reported that United is quite interested in a 777F. Boeing maybe hesitant though because of the cost of producing such a bird when the 747-400F is a hot seller.


"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlineCiro From Brazil, joined Aug 1999, 662 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (14 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 994 times:

Interesting... Where could I find an official source related to UAL's willingness to buy the 777F? I still sustain that such plane is not economically feasible for many reasons... I will be happy to discuss them, if necessary.

Regards



The fastest way to become a millionaire in the airline business is to start as a billionaire.
User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4445 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (14 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 994 times:

I believe that it was mentioned in Flight International (a magazine). I also share your skepticism Ciro. Why produce a 777F when the 747-400F is selling like hot cakes and bringing in all profit.


"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlineCiro From Brazil, joined Aug 1999, 662 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (14 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 993 times:

CX747, thank you for your support!   Many regards


The fastest way to become a millionaire in the airline business is to start as a billionaire.
User currently offlineRavi From Singapore, joined Oct 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (14 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 995 times:

Not only Flight International, but in UAL internal documents. The airline is interested in the 777F because it can somewhat amortize the costs along with the 61 777s it already has in service/on order.

The 777F would indeed be an expensive bird. Boeing is selling so many passenger versions at good market rates that another derivative would be an expensive proposition for airlines. However, Boeing must extend good will towards customers disappointed that MD-11 production has been terminated, and not everyone wants to fly 747-400Fs. Speaking of which, the 747-400F is currently the most expensive freighter available, and yet Boeing has sold 66 of the type.

I agree that a 777F, on the surface, is a very, very expensive proposition for just carrying freight around. However, the sheer capacity of the airframe will make it attractive to Asian operators. UAL, I presume, is interested because the 777F would be able to carry 25% more payload than a DC-10 with 10-15% lower trip costs. If the airframe could stay in service for 30-40 years - as would be expected - it would become a nice little earner for UAL.


User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1518 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (14 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 986 times:

Jim Hartigan VP UAL said they are interested in 777F>

Ruscoe


User currently offlineNavion From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1010 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (14 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 982 times:

Alan Mullaly of Boeing said the 777-200F or -300F would be great freighters. I think he said that after looking at the market and all other business factors such as cost to acquire. Pricewise, the 777F may not cost as much as a pax version due to the simpler layout (although the cargo system would weigh and cost more). I think price and performance wise, the 777 isn't far from the MD11 which made a great freighter so I think it's very possible it will come to pass.

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...
Any New Carriers To ORD On The Horizon? posted Fri Dec 30 2005 19:09:01 by ORD747CLE
ATL - Any New Carriers On The Horizon posted Thu Dec 29 2005 16:14:40 by Globalflyer
Trouble On The Horizon For Airtran posted Sat May 14 2005 22:55:19 by Padcrasher
New Flights On The Horizon posted Tue Jul 6 2004 06:05:49 by TriJetFan1
More Turbulence For CLE On The Horizon posted Wed Jul 2 2003 21:27:29 by Alpha 1
Was Nonstop CDG-MSY (finally!) On The Horizon? posted Wed Apr 30 2003 22:16:52 by ConcordeBoy
United A340-600 Order On The Horizon? posted Tue Jun 12 2001 00:33:17 by Teahan
Problems On The Horizon For Delta posted Wed Jan 10 2001 03:17:46 by ContinentalEWR
A320/B737 NG Replacements On The Horizon? posted Wed Jun 14 2000 00:32:11 by Teahan
777F's On The Horizon posted Wed Oct 13 1999 03:30:42 by Navion