Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airbus Launch A330P2F  
User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6926 posts, RR: 63
Posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 20739 times:

http://www.airbus.com/presscentre/pr...me-with-st-aerospace-and-eads-efw/

"The A330P2F programme includes two versions – the A330-200P2F and the larger A330-300P2F."

"Entry-into-service for the first A330-300P2F is targeted for 2016."


Mr. Al Baker will be happy.  

[Edited 2012-02-14 20:29:58]

90 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinecol From Malaysia, joined Nov 2003, 2116 posts, RR: 22
Reply 1, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 20690 times:

Timing could be perfect with available frames at the right price.

User currently offlinezkojq From New Zealand, joined Sep 2011, 1239 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 20673 times:

Interesting, I guess this will have a negative effect on sales of the A330-200F. That said, i'm unconvinced that there is enough feed-stock of older A330s for many to be converted any time soon. I guess by 2016 there should be enough.

Quoting PM (Thread starter):
Mr. Al Baker will be happy.  

Thats what I was thinking. I wonder if Qatar Airways will be the launch customer?



Air New Zealand; first to fly the Boeing 787-9. ZK-NZE, NZ103 AKL-SYD, 2014/08/09. I was 83rd to board.
User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6926 posts, RR: 63
Reply 3, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 20667 times:

I wonder if this will complement the new-build programme or compete with it.

Interesting, too, that they are launching both models - the 200 and 300.

It's hard not to imagine that this could be a large and profitable project.


User currently offlinecol From Malaysia, joined Nov 2003, 2116 posts, RR: 22
Reply 4, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 20572 times:

Did I read somewhere that they would not put the nose blister on and raise the front end?

User currently offlineBreninTW From Taiwan, joined Jul 2006, 1655 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 20532 times:

Quoting col (Reply 4):
Did I read somewhere that they would not put the nose blister on and raise the front end?

That's mentioned in the thread on the Singapore Air Show. Instead of raising the nose, the conversion will be fitted with a powered loading system.

Is a powered loading system heavier than the additional metalwork to raise the nose? If so, I can see this being a negative for the program.



I'm tired of the A vs. B sniping. Neither make planes that shed wings randomly!
User currently offlineairportugal310 From Tokelau, joined Apr 2004, 3643 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 20519 times:

Very good...according to most, that was the major thing hurting sales...problem 'fixed'  


I sell airplanes and airplane accessories
User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 858 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 20388 times:

Good move by Airbus, I can see these being significantly more popular than the new build A332F.

Quoting col (Reply 4):
Did I read somewhere that they would not put the nose blister on and raise the front end?

They said in the press conference it would use a nose gear that could be raised and lowered after loading.

Be interesting to see whether the A333P2F becomes popular with the package carriers?


User currently offlinebomber996 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 392 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 20369 times:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 7):
Be interesting to see whether the A333P2F becomes popular with the package carriers?

Would this be comparable to FX's MD-10's? If not, what size freighter could it be comparable to?

Peace   



AVIATION - A Vacation In Any Town, I Own Nothing
User currently offlineairtran737 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3704 posts, RR: 12
Reply 9, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 20319 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BreninTW (Reply 5):
That's mentioned in the thread on the Singapore Air Show. Instead of raising the nose, the conversion will be fitted with a powered loading system.

I would hate to be on that main deck when the GPU cuts out and the PDU's retract causing the freight to go screaming to the nose.



Nice Trip Report!!! Great Pics, thanks for posting!!!! B747Forever
User currently offlineFX1816 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 1400 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 20124 times:

Quoting bomber996 (Reply 8):
Quoting Ozair (Reply 7):Be interesting to see whether the A333P2F becomes popular with the package carriers?
Would this be comparable to FX's MD-10's? If not, what size freighter could it be comparable to?

Peace

Even if the A330P2F is similar to the MD10's, I think it may be a moot point for a while given the recent FDX order for 763F's.

FX1816


User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4398 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 19748 times:

Quoting FX1816 (Reply 10):
Even if the A330P2F is similar to the MD10's, I think it may be a moot point for a while given the recent FDX order for 763F's

Even the A332P2F is bigger than the 763F, the A333 is really a full step above it.


User currently offlinecolumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7073 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 19641 times:

Great news will this also include the A340 ?


It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlinezkojq From New Zealand, joined Sep 2011, 1239 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 19437 times:

Quoting columba (Reply 12):
Great news will this also include the A340 ?

I wish it did, but I doubt that it does  . Other than the fuel consumption, I think the A340 would make a great freighter - lots of lifting power, long range, ETOPS free and very low second hand prices.   



Air New Zealand; first to fly the Boeing 787-9. ZK-NZE, NZ103 AKL-SYD, 2014/08/09. I was 83rd to board.
User currently offlinejayeshrulz From India, joined Apr 2007, 1029 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 19307 times:

That is a great news. But i wonder will this lower the A330 F sales?


Keep flying, because the sky is no limit!
User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1574 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 19296 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting zkojq (Reply 13):
I wish it did, but I doubt that it does . Other than the fuel consumption, I think the A340 would make a great freighter - lots of lifting power, long range, ETOPS free and very low second hand prices.

I has got good fuel consumption, not as good as the 777 but with the limited utilisation of freighters the capital costs have a higher weighting on the overall costs than in a pax airliner and vice versa for the fuel consumption, this should help the A340 vs 777.

Fred


User currently offlinecolumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7073 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 19252 times:

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 15):
I has got good fuel consumption, not as good as the 777 but with the limited utilisation of freighters the capital costs have a higher weighting on the overall costs than in a pax airliner and vice versa for the fuel consumption, this should help the A340 vs 777.

I could see the A346 being a very good freighter replacing a lot of classic 747s.



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineGCPET From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2012, 204 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 19216 times:

Good decision on Airbus's part! Will the nose gear have to be modified like the A330F and how will do this?

GCPET



If it's not Boeing, I'm not going!
User currently offlineBongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3602 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 19140 times:

Quoting airtran737 (Reply 9):
Quoting BreninTW (Reply 5):
That's mentioned in the thread on the Singapore Air Show. Instead of raising the nose, the conversion will be fitted with a powered loading system.

I would hate to be on that main deck when the GPU cuts out and the PDU's retract causing the freight to go screaming to the nose.

Good job pallets on roller systems are always securely locked in place then. Logical really as you wouldn't want a deck full of unsecur5ed pallets on live rollers when a plane rotates for take off.


User currently offlinezkojq From New Zealand, joined Sep 2011, 1239 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 18903 times:

Quoting columba (Reply 16):
I could see the A346 being a very good freighter replacing a lot of classic 747s.

   and the A343P2F (along with the more expensive to purchase A333P2F) would make a great replacement for all the DC-8s and DC10s that are still flying around.

Quoting GCPET (Reply 17):
Good decision on Airbus's part! Will the nose gear have to be modified like the A330F and how will do this?

There was talk a couple of years ago about having a custom jack in the cargo hold that could easily be unloaded and (with the help of a ground power unit) be used to raise the nose so that the cabin floor is flat.



Air New Zealand; first to fly the Boeing 787-9. ZK-NZE, NZ103 AKL-SYD, 2014/08/09. I was 83rd to board.
User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1574 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 18867 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting jayeshrulz (Reply 14):
That is a great news. But i wonder will this lower the A330 F sales?

It could but it could have the opposite affect, cargo operators may start building a fleet of A330F now in the knowledge that the A330P2F will allow them to coninue fleet growth at a later time.

Fred


User currently offlineJerseyFlyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 641 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 18803 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 3):
I wonder if this will complement the new-build programme or compete with it.

Complement I think. The gap in capability between the P2F and new build will be widened if and when Airbus offer 240t new builds with sharklets and weight savings etc - they are to decide on this re pax 330s later this year.

It will be interesting to see if retrofitted sharklets get to be offered as part of the P2F conversion, and if new build 333F's are eventually offered.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 18673 times:

Quoting airtran737 (Reply 9):
I would hate to be on that main deck when the GPU cuts out and the PDU's retract causing the freight to go screaming to the nose.

Maybe I'm too optimistic but I think they are smart enough to identify and cover this and many other things that are likely to go wrong from time to time.


User currently onlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12571 posts, RR: 46
Reply 23, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 18624 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting airtran737 (Reply 9):
I would hate to be on that main deck when the GPU cuts out and the PDU's retract causing the freight to go screaming to the nose.

Do you seriously think they haven't thought about that?  Wow!

What is the nose-down angle anyway? I suspect it's something less than 45 degrees.   



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlinelotsamiles From United States of America, joined May 2005, 323 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 18523 times:

Quoting airtran737 (Reply 9):
I would hate to be on that main deck when the GPU cuts out and the PDU's retract causing the freight to go screaming to the nose.

The system would likely contain braking rollers which retard towards the door and prevent runaway movements. This already exists on the A300 and A310 freighters. The braking rollers are simple mechanical units and do not require electrical power.


User currently offliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2641 posts, RR: 1
Reply 25, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 19092 times:

What a positive surprise, looks like all the pressure on Airbus from customers has finally paid off. It also confirms the rumored interest for -300F's, and not just -200F's as today.

With ST Aerospace doing the engineering, that will prevent too much resource drain from Airbus for the P2F program, which IMO was one of the reasons holding it back, as Airbus has too much on its hands right now. And with EFW, the conversion work still stays in house.

Without wanting to steer off topic, I now wonder if there's a chance that the A320P2F could be resurrected by a similar deal...?


User currently offlinemogandoCI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 26, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 19043 times:

Quoting zkojq (Reply 2):
Interesting, I guess this will have a negative effect on sales of the A330-200F. That said, i'm unconvinced that there is enough feed-stock of older A330s for many to be converted any time soon. I guess by 2016 there should be enough.

Probably better for Airbus to cannibalize their own sales than have some 3rd party come in and do it for them.


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4762 posts, RR: 39
Reply 27, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 19450 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 21):
It will be interesting to see if retrofitted sharklets get to be offered as part of the P2F conversion, and if new build 333F's are eventually offered.

Interesting questions indeed. But it good to see Airbus finally deciding on this issue. The A330 will be around for quite a number of years to come. What a class act she is.  .


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31060 posts, RR: 87
Reply 28, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 19389 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Based on comments and presentations over the years by Airbus, the A330P2F family should offer:


A332P2F - 22 96x125" ULDs
A333P2F - 26 96x125" ULDs

A332P2F Volume - 475m3
A333P2F Volume - 570m3

A332P2F Payload - ~65t
A333P2F Payload - ~60t

A332P2F Range - ~7400km
A333P2F Range - ~7400km (with an optional center fuel tank)


User currently offlinejdevora From Spain, joined Aug 2006, 353 posts, RR: 7
Reply 29, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 18623 times:

Quoting r2rho (Reply 25):
Without wanting to steer off topic, I now wonder if there's a chance that the A320P2F could be resurrected by a similar deal...?

My understanding was that the mayor problem was the unavailability of enough cheap A320s...

I don't think that this problem will change in the next few years
JD Evora


User currently offline777jaah From Colombia, joined Jan 2006, 1403 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 18549 times:

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 20):
It could but it could have the opposite affect, cargo operators may start building a fleet of A330F now in the knowledge that the A330P2F will allow them to coninue fleet growth at a later time.

AV has some 330F in order for their cargo division, QT. I cna see AV converting some of its 332 in a couple of years after they get all the 787s and 350s, and keeping the fleet simple but still growing without having to hunt for second-hand airframes or waiting for brand new ones.

Quoting PM (Thread starter):
Entry-into-service for the first A330-300P2F is targeted for 2016."

How long could it take for the conversion of a 332??

Cheers

777jaah



Next flights: AV BOG-ADZ-BOG, AV-UA BOG-IAD-ORD-IAD-BOG, BOG-FLL-BOG, LA BOG-MIA-BOG J
User currently offlinejoelyboy911 From New Zealand, joined Oct 2009, 244 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 17924 times:

Why would an A343P2F not be launched? Is the cost to have it certified, etc, too great?

Surely it would cost nothing to offer the exact same process as the A333P2F on the four-engined variant?



Flown: NZ, NY, SJ, QF, UA, AC, EI, BE, TP, AF
User currently offlinelotsamiles From United States of America, joined May 2005, 323 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 17915 times:

Quoting jdevora (Reply 29):
My understanding was that the mayor problem was the unavailability of enough cheap A320s...

I don't think that this problem will change in the next few years

Getting a bit off topic, but...

Older generation A320's with CFM56-5A1 or V2500-A1 engines can be purchased for around $3M now. Of course, the more desirable configurations with CFM56-5B or V2500-A5 engines are still above $10M, clearly too much for a narrow body conversion.

If a cargo operator can make the older engines work in their system, it is hard to imagine that a $3M aircraft is too expensive for the program to be launched. I believe the A320P2F program will come back in the not too distant future, likely in a different business partnership. Regardless, the 737-300/400 converted freighter is going to be touch competition for the A320P2F. 737 classics are cheap to buy (many are under $2M), and there is a choice in programs to keep the conversion price in check.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31060 posts, RR: 87
Reply 33, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 17863 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting lotsamiles (Reply 32):
If a cargo operator can make the older engines work in their system, it is hard to imagine that a $3M aircraft is too expensive for the program to be launched.

I don't believe it is the engines as much as the low TOWs of the A320-100s that make these models undesirable for conversion.


User currently offlineBongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3602 posts, RR: 3
Reply 34, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 17651 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 33):
I don't believe it is the engines as much as the low TOWs of the A320-100s that make these models undesirable for conversion.

I don't believe that there is an A320-100 still in existence, only 21 built and all now scrapped.


User currently offlinebreiz From France, joined Mar 2005, 1917 posts, RR: 2
Reply 35, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 16716 times:

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 34):
I don't believe that there is an A320-100 still in existence, only 21 built and all now scrapped.


Actually A320 MSN 0001 is still flying as test-bed for Airbus.


User currently offlineneutronstar73 From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 507 posts, RR: 0
Reply 36, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 16565 times:

Quoting PM (Thread starter):
"Entry-into-service for the first A330-300P2F is targeted for 2016."

And the A330F is dead in the water as soon as this bird is released. And JL is really smoking something good when he believes this announcement will have no negative effect on the A330F. Operators who have old A330s will not even think about buying new when they can convert their old stuff, and probably cheaper, too.

Good move on Airbus's part; maybe they see the handwriting on the wall for the A330F.

[Edited 2012-02-15 07:38:01]

User currently offlineB777LRF From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1368 posts, RR: 3
Reply 37, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 16384 times:

One wonders if there are a bunch of guys in Memphis burning the midnight oil trying to find a way to wiggle out of a 767F order ....


From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
User currently offlinepacksonflight From Iceland, joined Jan 2010, 381 posts, RR: 0
Reply 38, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 16325 times:

Quoting jdevora (Reply 29):
My understanding was that the mayor problem was the unavailability of enough cheap A320s...

That was the official word, but probably the 320 program was to complicated with 4 parties involved, or Airbus for some reason did not want to work with the Russians.

I would not be surprised that the 320 p2f program would be launched shortly, and the setup would be very similar to this new 330 program


User currently offlinelotsamiles From United States of America, joined May 2005, 323 posts, RR: 0
Reply 39, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 16287 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 33):
I don't believe it is the engines as much as the low TOWs of the A320-100s that make these models undesirable for conversion.

Yes that it true about the -100's. However, there are some affordable -200's with the -5A3's that have decent weights. Right now a lot of -200's are being scrapped as there is no other option for them. Lease rates are very low and there is too much competition from newer A320's. Perhaps a P2F can be a good option for some of those early -200's.


User currently offlineneutronstar73 From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 507 posts, RR: 0
Reply 40, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 16216 times:

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 37):

Hmm...don't think so. I think if anyone could've made Airbus do this earlier, it's FedEx. I would believe they are sleeping pretty well tonight.


User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 847 posts, RR: 1
Reply 41, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 16165 times:

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 36):
And the A330F is dead in the water as soon as this bird is released. And JL is really smoking something good when he believes this announcement will have no negative effect on the A330F. Operators who have old A330s will not even think about buying new when they can convert their old stuff, and probably cheaper, too.

Good move on Airbus's part; maybe they see the handwriting on the wall for the A330F.

Does the same apply to the 767 then? It’s had a similar conversion available for a few years now.


User currently offlineB777LRF From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1368 posts, RR: 3
Reply 42, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 16034 times:

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 40):
Hmm...don't think so. I think if anyone could've made Airbus do this earlier, it's FedEx. I would believe they are sleeping pretty well tonight.

I don't quite agree. If you're looking for a DC10 replacement, the 767F is a pretty poor choice. Well, the 767F is a poor choice regardless, but when there's no other options needs be and all that.

Neither of us know how much FX tried to persuade Airbus to launch a P2F program for the A330, if at all. And if they did, perhaps Airbus decided they were going to take their time on the decision, as they did when Al Baker (once again) threw his toys out of the cot, and not allow themselves to be forced into doing something they hadn't thought all the way through. They did have an A330F to protect, but has apparently had a bit of a rethink.

Bottom line is that we don't know. But the P2F will be vastly more capable than the 767F, but in terms of payload but even more so in terms of volume.

Wouldn't be surprised if FX announced an order for more 777F's in return for a cancellation of the 767F, and invited Johnny Leahy over for a cup of coffee and a little chat about A330s. But that's just pure speculation, utterly unfounded in anything but prejudice towards the 767F*, and a strong feeling the A333P2F looks like it's going to be one hell of a package carrier.

* Our lot operates the 767F, and it's a vile piece of brown smelly bits. It's just as bad as the 777F is good, and that's quite telling.



From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
User currently offlineneutronstar73 From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 507 posts, RR: 0
Reply 43, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 16021 times:

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 41):

I'm afraid we're not talking about the 767. We're talking about the A330. I believe there is a thread about the 767 freighter elsewhere on this site and comparisons to the A300 and A330. Perhaps the answer to this question resides there.  

Either way, you're comparing apples to space launch vehicles. 2 different companies, with 2 different aircraft at two different points in time in their service lives. And two wholly different market and political motivations as to why these aircraft were built.
 


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5529 posts, RR: 6
Reply 44, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 15778 times:

I don't think the 767 will be enough for FX. I think they will need either A330P2Fs or 777-200BCFs. The A330-300P2F seems like an ideal MD-10 replacement.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 28):
A333P2F Range - ~7400km (with an optional center fuel tank)

Center fuel tank? If they are ready to fit a center fuel tank to A330-300P2Fs, will it be coming to A330-300 passenger versions as well?

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 42):

* Our lot operates the 767F, and it's a vile piece of brown smelly bits. It's just as bad as the 777F is good, and that's quite telling.

Please elaborate. Sure it doesn't have the 777's payload range, but it seems to do its job pretty well for a lot of operators.

[Edited 2012-02-15 08:24:06]

User currently offlineFlaps From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 1280 posts, RR: 4
Reply 45, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 15696 times:

Can't say I'm a big fan of the powered floor idea. Not that I feel that it wouldn't work, I'm sure that it will but it definitely adds to the potential for operational headaches. I spent many, many years in the air cargo business and if something can go wrong, believe me it will. The simpler the better. From a maintenance standpoint I can't speculate on whether gear modifications or the powered floor would be the bigger headache. From an operational standpoint all I can see is a logistical nightmare when the floor goes tech and there is insufficient manpower available to push uphill.

User currently offlineFX1816 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 1400 posts, RR: 4
Reply 46, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 14904 times:

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 11):
Quoting FX1816 (Reply 10):Even if the A330P2F is similar to the MD10's, I think it may be a moot point for a while given the recent FDX order for 763F's
Even the A332P2F is bigger than the 763F, the A333 is really a full step above it.

True but I'm not so sure that FDX will bite on the A333P2F. It seems as though they might be going through with a fleet of 757's, 767's and 777's. Yes the MD11's and the A306's will still be around for quite a while but it just seems as though they are in that mood right now.

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 42):
Wouldn't be surprised if FX announced an order for more 777F's in return for a cancellation of the 767F, and invited Johnny Leahy over for a cup of coffee and a little chat about A330s.

I highly doubt it. FDX is going through with the 763 like it or not. Obviously UPS has done just fine with the aircraft. I don't see the A330 with FDX for quite a long time. One of the biggest issues they would have would be with parking at MEM alone. That place is tight taking and MD10 through there let alone an MD11, with a wing span nearly 30 ft longer, the A330 would be a night mare at MEM.

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 42):
* Our lot operates the 767F, and it's a vile piece of brown smelly bits. It's just as bad as the 777F is good, and that's quite telling.

I would call this a pretty childish line.

FX1816


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31060 posts, RR: 87
Reply 47, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 14236 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

FX would have known Airbus' plans for the A330P2F and no doubt took them into account when they placed their 767 freighter order. So I'm 110% confident, B77LRF, that FX is not going to cancel their 767 order.

That being said, FX didn't place a 75-frame 767 order, which is what they would have needed to do to replace their MD-10-10F and MD-10-30F fleets. So I see no reason at this time to conclude that the A330 freighter - new or converted - is something that will never fly in FX colors. It's still too early to make that claim with any authority.




Quoting seabosdca (Reply 44):
Center fuel tank? If they are ready to fit a center fuel tank to A330-300P2Fs, will it be coming to A330-300 passenger versions as well?

Honestly, I don't know. The A330-300 can tank about 50,000 less liters than the A330-200 and A330-200F, so the only way an A333P2F can take a similar payload weight the same distance as an A332(P2)F is if it has a center tank and there has been at least one Airbus freighter executive mentioning a center tank option, though it is possible they were misquoted or misrepresented by the publication printing the statement.


User currently onlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12571 posts, RR: 46
Reply 48, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 13871 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 36):
And the A330F is dead in the water as soon as this bird is released.



Well it's released now and Airbus has only just booked additional A330F orders from an existing A330 operator.   

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 36):
Good move on Airbus's part



It certainly is.   

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 36):
maybe they see the handwriting on the wall for the A330F.



Except there is none.   

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 43):
I'm afraid we're not talking about the 767. We're talking about the A330.



Indeed, but it's a perfectly valid question as the 767 is the closest direct competitor to the A330F and is in the same position with respect to being available as new build or conversion. So if the availability of the A330P2F is going to leave the A330F "dead in the water" (in your opinion) why doesn't the same apply to the 767?



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6489 posts, RR: 3
Reply 49, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 13628 times:

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 26):
Probably better for Airbus to cannibalize their own sales than have some 3rd party come in and do it for them.

This is an important lesson that Apple has taught the world. Obsolete your own product before someone else does. Apple didn't invent the concept, but they perfected it.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineB777LRF From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1368 posts, RR: 3
Reply 50, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 13161 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 44):
Please elaborate. Sure it doesn't have the 777's payload range, but it seems to do its job pretty well for a lot of operators.

Only too happy to oblige:

The powered floor is absolute pants. We deactivated ours within 3 months of taking delivery of brand new aircraft owing to a multitude of PDU failures. The PDU's on the 777F, on the other hand, works just fine.

It's too narrow, meaning you can't load LD3s side by side or P1s and LD11s laterally downstairs. Instead you're stuck with an orphan fleet of DQF containers that only fits the 767 and thus can't be cross loaded. It can't load 125/96 ULDs side-by-side on the main-deck either.

It's only able to carry around 54ish tons across the pond going West and around 58ish tons going East. That's barely enough to make it profitable, resulting in the thinnest of thin profit margains. Even a clapped out 747-200 has better margains, provided you can fill it up of course.

It's woefully slow, usually pottering about at .80. Sure, you can go faster, but then fuel burn goes through the roof and the profit has vapourised.

The maximum ULD weights are low, and it doesn't matter if you load 125/96 or 16ft pallets - maximum weight is the same.

Postions A1. Load it with a container and the crew can't access the main-deck, meaning you can't load CAO's requiring accessibility. So you have to be creative building pallets with an aisle, loosing volume in the process.

There's probably more, but that's all my tired brain can recall right now.

Quoting FX1816 (Reply 46):
I would call this a pretty childish line.

Growing old is mandatory, growing up is optional. Besides this is a forum for armchair airline CEOs some of which couldn't manage a p1ss up in a brewery and haven't started shaving yet, so it's all par for the course.



From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
User currently offlineairtran737 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3704 posts, RR: 12
Reply 51, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 13110 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 18):

Good job pallets on roller systems are always securely locked in place then. Logical really as you wouldn't want a deck full of unsecur5ed pallets on live rollers when a plane rotates for take off.

Pallets in transit aren't locked in, and are thus susceptible to unwanted travel if the power to the rollers is lost.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 23):
Do you seriously think they haven't thought about that? Wow!

What is the nose-down angle anyway? I suspect it's something less than 45 degrees.

I am a loadmaster on the 747 and even a 2 degree slope can cause pallets to slide back and forth if the power is lost. I have seen a mechanic almost get decapitated when he climbed out of the E&E bay which deactivates the system when the hatch is removed from the floor.

Quoting lotsamiles (Reply 24):
The system would likely contain braking rollers which retard towards the door and prevent runaway movements. This already exists on the A300 and A310 freighters. The braking rollers are simple mechanical units and do not require electrical power.

That makes sense, but the 300 and 310 still don't have the nose down attitude of the 330. We'll see what Airbus comes up with.



Nice Trip Report!!! Great Pics, thanks for posting!!!! B747Forever
User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4774 posts, RR: 14
Reply 52, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 12802 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 28):
A332P2F Payload - ~65t
A333P2F Payload - ~60t

a PF having almost identical payload than a dedicated freighter??? doesn't sound right acaps show 65 or 70 max tonne payload depending on weight or range variant for A332F

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 36):
And the A330F is dead in the water as soon as this bird is released. And JL is really smoking something good when he believes this announcement will have no negative effect on the A330F. Operators who have old A330s will not even think about buying new when they can convert their old stuff, and probably cheaper, too.

didn't stop them selling more than a few dedicated A306Fs and having conversions on the market.
unless Stitch is correct its unlikely a conversion will have essentially same payload as a dedicated freighter. market for both likely to be just different enough to satisfy two different groups of customers


User currently offlineglideslope From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1618 posts, RR: 0
Reply 53, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 12523 times:

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 37):
One wonders if there are a bunch of guys in Memphis burning the midnight oil trying to find a way to wiggle out of a 767F order ....

Not that I have seen.   



To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31060 posts, RR: 87
Reply 54, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 12373 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting trex8 (Reply 52):
a PF having almost identical payload than a dedicated freighter??? doesn't sound right acaps show 65 or 70 max tonne payload depending on weight or range variant for A332F

Agreed.

I'm going to hazard a guess Airbus' freighter execs have been estimating a bit high. Now that we actually have a program in place, we should get some harder numbers (with the understand they can vary depending on the WV of the frame being converted).


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25459 posts, RR: 22
Reply 55, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 11744 times:

How many A330s are currently available for freighter conversion? Are many stored? I thought they were virtually all still in passenger service.

User currently offlineata l1011 From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1384 posts, RR: 6
Reply 56, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 11590 times:

Quoting airtran737 (Reply 51):
That makes sense, but the 300 and 310 still don't have the nose down attitude of the 330. We'll see what Airbus comes up with.

A300 most definately has that nose down attitude, the A310 doesnt so much.



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mario Serrano


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Kristóf Csemniczky



[Edited 2012-02-15 13:25:21]


Treat others as you expect to be treated!
User currently offlineukoverlander From United Kingdom, joined May 2010, 369 posts, RR: 0
Reply 57, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 11270 times:

Quoting airtran737 (Reply 9):
I would hate to be on that main deck when the GPU cuts out and the PDU's retract causing the freight to go screaming to the nose.

Of course......because there's no way in the world that Airbus' world class team of aeronautical engineers will have given that matter any consideration at all now will they?   

[Edited 2012-02-15 13:31:31]

User currently onlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12571 posts, RR: 46
Reply 58, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 11199 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 55):
How many A330s are currently available for freighter conversion? Are many stored? I thought they were virtually all still in passenger service.

According to AeroTransport.org, just 3:

G-OJMC c/n 456 stored at AUH
A6-EAL c/n 462 location unknown
VP-CAC c/n 1053 stored at LDE



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31060 posts, RR: 87
Reply 59, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 9079 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 55):
How many A330s are currently available for freighter conversion? I thought they were virtually all still in passenger service.

They are, which is why conversions won't be starting until 2016. By then, the 787 and A350 will (hopefully) both be in regular production and replacing A330s in airline fleets. I believe QR have stated that as they receive 787-8s to replace A330-200s, those A330s will be converted to freighters to supplement their new-builds. I would not be surprised if they do the same with their A330-300s as A350-900s arrive.


User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6926 posts, RR: 63
Reply 60, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 8720 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 59):
I believe QR have stated that as they receive 787-8s to replace A330-200s, those A330s will be converted to freighters to supplement their new-builds. I would not be surprised if they do the same with their A330-300s as A350-900s arrive.

I can't recall or find where I read it but the number of A330s QR was talking about converting was greater than the number of A330-200s in their fleet so I assumed the A330-300 was included in there too. Of course, it now looks like the A330-300P2F will happen first.


User currently offlineneutronstar73 From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 507 posts, RR: 0
Reply 61, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 7916 times:

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 42):
But that's just pure speculation, utterly unfounded in anything but prejudice towards the 767F*, and a strong feeling the A333P2F looks like it's going to be one hell of a package carrier.

Somehow I think FedEx, UPS, DHL and some others who operate the 767 will highly disagree with you about the 767 being as bad as you say it is. IN fact, it is probably highly capable. I think FedEx MUST be happy with their purchase because they selected it over the A330F, and that bird is not exactly lighting up Airbus's order book. I really don't think FedEx was forced into selecting the 767 because is "stinks". That would be a pretty stupid business decision (along with UPS), and last I checked FedEx was a very well run company. So, maybe in their eyes the A330F was terrible and the 767 fit well.

I think the A330P2F was a no-brainer for Airbus; because the demand must be there. Once again, smart move. We'll se how it does.


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4762 posts, RR: 39
Reply 62, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 7094 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 61):
I think FedEx MUST be happy with their purchase because they selected it over the A330F,

And they received incomparable and huge discounts since their last order keeps the B767 line running until the tankers can be build. You are easily forgetting this. Where the A330F is hardly sold with any discount, also due to the pressure the highly successful passenger versions put on the production line.  . Something like that is not going on with the B767 for a long time.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31060 posts, RR: 87
Reply 63, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 6753 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 62):
(FX) received incomparable and huge discounts since their last order keeps the B767 line running until the tankers can be build.

Aviation valuation firms calculate FX received half-off list, which is about what any customer for any current in-production airliner other than the A380-800 and 777-300ER can expect. A two-year old 767-300F is worth around $60 million, so $85 million a frame is not too out of line for a brand-new one.

Also, Boeing could have kept 767 production very low to bridge the delay until full serial production of the KC-46 happens. Instead, they're increasing the rate. So rather than forcing Boeing to cut pricing to the bone to garner orders to keep the FAL alive, I see these new slots as opening up new sales opportunities. After all, FX gets their first 767 in 2014. They definitely could not get an A330-200P2F before then and probably couldn't get an A330-200F before then, either.



Quoting EPA001 (Reply 62):
Where the A330F is hardly sold with any discount...

I know of one A330-200F customer whom received a discount of over 60% off list at the time of their order, but this would be at the extreme end. A one year-old A330-200F is worth around $100 million, so the chances that anyone is paying twice that (list price) is very unlikely. The A330-200F is a better freighter than the 767-300F, but I don't believe it's a two-and-a-half times better freighter (which it would have to be to justify paying the $212 million list price for one A330-200F versus securing 2.5 767-300Fs at FX's price) and I expect cargo operators are in agreement.  


User currently offlineB777LRF From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1368 posts, RR: 3
Reply 64, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 6363 times:

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 61):
Somehow I think FedEx, UPS, DHL and some others who operate the 767 will highly disagree with you about the 767 being as bad as you say it is.

I cannot vouch for all of the three integrators you mention, but for the one that ain't American I can say without a shadow of a doubt it's been a huge, almost embarrassing, failure. And this ain't some 3rd party hearsay from a rampie; I'm senior enough in the company to have access to raw data and inside information.

It sucks mate, plain and simply



From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
User currently onlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10074 posts, RR: 97
Reply 65, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 5997 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 47):
FX would have known Airbus' plans for the A330P2F and no doubt took them into account when they placed their 767 freighter order. So I'm 110% confident, B77LRF, that FX is not going to cancel their 767 order.

On the basis that only recently QR stated that Airbus hadn't made their minds up about the A330 P2F, I suspect FX might have been in the dark also...

As for the A330F being DOA ...........   
just trolling IMO

Rgds


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31060 posts, RR: 87
Reply 66, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 5954 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting astuteman (Reply 65):
On the basis that only recently QR stated that Airbus hadn't made their minds up about the A330 P2F, I suspect FX might have been in the dark also...

I'm sorry, but if part of the FX RFP to Airbus was for A330 passenger to freighter conversions, I cannot believe they would play coy. If anything, I believe that is what would have convinced them they needed to make it happen.

That being said, it is possible that the RFP was only for new-builds and Airbus' plans for a P2F did not have any influence on which way FX went with this first tranche. Now that Airbus does have a P2F plan in place, if future RFPs take that into account, Airbus has an offering to compete against the 767 P2F conversions available.


User currently onlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10074 posts, RR: 97
Reply 67, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 5705 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 66):
I'm sorry, but if part of the FX RFP to Airbus was for A330 passenger to freighter conversions, I cannot believe they would play coy. If anything, I believe that is what would have convinced them they needed to make it happen.

FX have already been burned by Airbus playing a "do-we, don't we" game with a freighter launch in recent years....

Who knows

Rgds


User currently offlinedennys From France, joined May 2001, 889 posts, RR: 1
Reply 68, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 5654 times:

Quoting columba (Reply 12):

Thank you ! I would love to see the A343 A345 A346 flying again as freighters . They could have a slot for freighters too !


User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 847 posts, RR: 1
Reply 69, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 5562 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 63):
Aviation valuation firms calculate FX received half-off list, which is about what any customer for any current in-production airliner other than the A380-800 and 777-300ER can expect. A two-year old 767-300F is worth around $60 million, so $85 million a frame is not too out of line for a brand-new one.

Well, they speculated that FX received at least the “standard” 50% discount so it could quite possibly be more, I guess no one knows. What’s not to be overlooked though is that at the same time they placed the order for the 767’s they deferred 11 777F’s until 2018/2019, I’ve no doubt this and its associated costs played a part in the deal

[Edited 2012-02-17 02:40:10]

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31060 posts, RR: 87
Reply 70, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 5310 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting astuteman (Reply 67):
FX have already been burned by Airbus playing a "do-we, don't we" game with a freighter launch in recent years....

Fair enough. If FX factored in P2F conversions, the 767 was the safest bet since there are both Boeing and third-party conversion options for the 767-200 and 767-300 families already available.



Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 69):
Well, they speculated that FX received at least the “standard” 50% discount so it could quite possibly be more...

Certainly. Especially considering that FX will likely be buying spares and other ancillaries for many decades to come on each one, which will provide a nice and steady revenue stream.

But my argument is Boeing did not have to prostrate themselves before FX to get them to choose the 767-300F. I also argue that Airbus was not in a position to tell FX that if they wanted an A330-200F, they had to pay near list price due to "market adjusted value".


User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 847 posts, RR: 1
Reply 71, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 5229 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 70):
But my argument is Boeing did not have to prostrate themselves before FX to get them to choose the 767-300F".

Perhaps not, but considering its order history; 2009: 7, 2010: 3 and 10 frames placed in 2011 prior to the FedEx order Boeing would have been very keen that FedEx place an order to keep the line open until the tankers start coming through. And those figures are for BOTH passenger and freighter versions.

Airbus had exactly the opposite problem, with massive demand for the A330 passenger version the line is going to be at capacity for the foreseeable future. With this, and the 777F deferrals then it really doesn’t take a genius to work out what FX were going to order..


User currently offlinecol From Malaysia, joined Nov 2003, 2116 posts, RR: 22
Reply 72, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 5064 times:

I know that FX got the frame they wanted at the price they wanted. In fact I am 100% sure.

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31060 posts, RR: 87
Reply 73, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 5036 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 71):
Perhaps not, but considering its order history; 2009: 7, 2010: 3 and 10 frames placed in 2011 prior to the FedEx order Boeing would have been very keen that FedEx place an order to keep the line open until the tankers start coming through. And those figures are for BOTH passenger and freighter versions.

Again, if Boeing had held 767 production at .75 frames a month, that would have been fine to bridge the gap to the KC-46. They did not need to "scare up" orders to keep the line alive. Not to mention Boeing needed to adapt the line to be ITAR compliant for the tanker, so they could have just run out the commercial frames and closed the line to convert it.

Instead, Boeing created a new FAL that was ITAR-compliant while continuing to build planes on the old FAL. And once they were done, they paced the new FAL at two planes per month - with the option to go to three - years before the KC-46A would be in serial production.

Why do that? Your current customers bought under the old production rate, so a faster rate, while possibly welcomed, wasn't necessary.

I would posit the reason Boeing did that is because they had interest from customers in more 767s, but those customers were not ordering because of the long delays due to the very low production rate. Once Boeing had won the KC-X deal for sure, they could invest in a production rate increase and no doubt started talking to customers who'd previously expressed an interest in additional frames.

And I would also posit that if Boeing had not put the new FAL and it's higher production rate into play years earlier than they needed to for the KC-46, FX might very well have NOT ordered the plane, regardless of how cheap Boeing was willing to go. FX has almost a score of MD-10-30Fs they want to get rid of sooner rather than later and Boeing could now deliver them the last 767 in 2018, as opposed to the first.

Quoting col (Reply 72):
I know that FX got the frame they wanted at the price they wanted. In fact I am 100% sure.

If they hadn't, they wouldn't have bought them, so.  

But even a free plane is not very valuable if you receive it a decade after you need it.


User currently offlineneutronstar73 From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 507 posts, RR: 0
Reply 74, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 4637 times:

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 71):
Perhaps not, but considering its order history; 2009: 7, 2010: 3 and 10 frames placed in 2011 prior to the FedEx order Boeing would have been very keen that FedEx place an order to keep the line open until the tankers start coming through. And those figures are for BOTH passenger and freighter versions.

And Airbus would have been keen to get FedEx on board to buy more cash-cow A330s. And Boeing is guaranteed money on the KC-46, so your point about Boeing going the extra mile and offering and even more (speculative discount) is rather meaningless. Both companies wanted FedEx's business, just as I'm sure Boeing would love to get Qatar's freighter business in the wake of the A330P2F (but which, I'm afraid, they don't have a prayer of getting with this news, unless they go all in on the 777F)

The argument that Boeing "NEEDED" this order to keep the production line open is not very helpful. The line HAS to stay open if they are going to get those 17 KC-46As to the USAF by 2017.


User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 847 posts, RR: 1
Reply 75, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 4545 times:

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 74):
The argument that Boeing "NEEDED" this order to keep the production line open is not very helpful. The line HAS to stay open if they are going to get those 17 KC-46As to the USAF by 2017.

This is basically what I was saying, Boeing had to have the line open in order to produce the tankers therefore it makes sense to keep the line busy at a reasonable production rate until they are ready to produce the tankers.

I don’t know what discount FX received, or how much other aspects such as the 777 deferral influenced the order. However I think most people will accept that in a scenario where price and availability are equal then the A330F being the more modern, more capable frame would have been FX’s first choice. However, this was obviously not the case here. With no backlog and a new FAL producing 2 frames a month Boeing were able to offer the 767 at a great price with quick delivery.

I’m not trying to say Boeing gave them away or went to extraordinary lengths to secure this order, just that the circumstances were such that Boeing had much more to gain from the order than Airbus. And again, that’s not to say Airbus wouldn’t have welcomed it; just that with demand for the A330 being around ten times that of the 767 it is able to command a high price and has a long lead time.


User currently offlinerotating14 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 674 posts, RR: 0
Reply 76, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4326 times:

The whole debate on if FX was even looking at the A330f would be under the assumption that they are even on talking terms from the A380 fiasco. The folks at FX are competent enough to know that if a certain model wont work then it wont work. IF my memory serves me correctly one of the issues with the A330 was the wingspan and the parking slots on the MEM and other ramps. What good is a plane that is superior to the latter if ramp space won't allow you to park it?? FX must have figured that the trade off of the inability of the 767 is better than that of the larger wingspan problem.



If the A330f is a goner is still to be determined but what has to be considered is what does a customer sacrifice by going the way of the new freighter or the older converted shell?? Of thee major parcel delivery firms FX is now on board, UPS is likely never going away from its 767 ops and DHL now flys both 767's and 777's. I can't really see anybody else who would order anymore a330f in large numbers to quantify its existence, aside from the trickle of passenger operators who would order it. Lets be clear, Boeing has the freighter segment almost to it's self. Airbus really didn't have a choice but to go the conversation route.

To note, I would almost bet 340's going the freighter route is almost slim to none. Granted I'm no engineer but the trend is leaning towards twins in most regards. If a carrier wants a quad freighter they can get a hold of Jades frames or other 747's that are being retired ( Singapore ) that are not fitting into the carriers current business model. Fuel prices are the driving factor. Besides the 747 is proven whereas the 340's is an idea.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25459 posts, RR: 22
Reply 77, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4352 times:

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 76):
IF my memory serves me correctly one of the issues with the A330 was the wingspan and the parking slots on the MEM and other ramps. What good is a plane that is superior to the latter if ramp space won't allow you to park it?? FX must have figured that the trade off of the inability of the 767 is better than that of the larger wingspan problem.

The A330s 40-ft greater wingspan (196 ft. vs. 156 ft.) means you can park 5 763s in the space of 4 A330s.


User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 847 posts, RR: 1
Reply 78, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4318 times:

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 76):

If the A330f is a goner is still to be determined but what has to be considered is what does a customer sacrifice by going the way of the new freighter or the older converted shell?? Of thee major parcel delivery firms FX is now on board, UPS is likely never going away from its 767 ops and DHL now flys both 767's and 777's. I can't really see anybody else who would order anymore a330f in large numbers to quantify its existence, aside from the trickle of passenger operators who would order it. Lets be clear, Boeing has the freighter segment almost to it's self. Airbus really didn't have a choice but to go the conversation route.

Hmm, I suspect you have forgotten the A300. Airbus widebodys are the backbone of the package freight with FedEx operating over 100 frames, UPS over 50 and DHL 13 making it the most prevalent widebody in each respective fleet.

So yeah, Boeing have that market to themselves… LMAO


User currently offlinerotating14 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 674 posts, RR: 0
Reply 79, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4231 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 77):

Agreed

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 78):

I should have been more clear, what I was trying to say was that the major parcel delivery firms wont be placing orders for the A330f as Boeing has a majority market at the moment. I am fully aware of the A300 & A310 freighter versions as FX bought the last A300F off the line and plenty of other carriers use them extensively. Can you explain to me what Airbus offers to counter the 748F and the 777f?? Not trying to spark a different debate but you can clearly see Airbus offers 1 model to the 4 you can get with a Boeing model (757, 767, 777, 747)


User currently offlineSSTeve From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 710 posts, RR: 1
Reply 80, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4092 times:

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 75):
just that the circumstances were such that Boeing had much more to gain from the order than Airbus.

That's a good way of putting it. And certainly any reasonable accommodation was made.

I also wonder if almost every cost being dollar-denominated helps Boeing cut the margins very precisely. Am I wrong in thinking Fedex's bill at Airbus still would have been dollar-denominated?


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31060 posts, RR: 87
Reply 81, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 3782 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting SSTeve (Reply 80):
I also wonder if almost every cost being dollar-denominated helps Boeing cut the margins very precisely. Am I wrong in thinking Fedex's bill at Airbus still would have been dollar-denominated?

I believe Airbus continues to sell planes only in US Dollars. They had at least planned to also allow purchases to be paid for in Euro, but I am not sure if they ever actually executed the plan.

Airbus does purchase a good bit of kit from the US and that kit would be priced in dollars. But Boeing purchases a good bit of the 767 from Japan and some from Europe. I do not know if they're priced in Yen | Euro | British Pounds or US Dollars.


User currently offlineKFlyer From Sri Lanka, joined Mar 2007, 1226 posts, RR: 0
Reply 82, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 3583 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 58):
According to AeroTransport.org, just 3:

G-OJMC c/n 456 stored at AUH
A6-EAL c/n 462 location unknown
VP-CAC c/n 1053 stored at LDE

And I am quite certain that at least two will re-enter service soon..



The opinions above are solely my own and do not express those of my employers or clients.
User currently offliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2641 posts, RR: 1
Reply 83, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3121 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 54):
Quoting trex8 (Reply 52):
a PF having almost identical payload than a dedicated freighter??? doesn't sound right acaps show 65 or 70 max tonne payload depending on weight or range variant for A332F

I'm going to hazard a guess Airbus' freighter execs have been estimating a bit high. Now that we actually have a program in place, we should get some harder numbers (with the understand they can vary depending on the WV of the frame being converted).

Indeed, we're going to end up with a fairly wide spread of A330P2F payload-range capabilities, as an early-build frame is much less capable than a current build one. Therefore IMO there is still room for new-build A330F's for those who truly need the full capability (no point to buy a fairly new A332 and convert it, unless it's perhaps an A333 for which there is no new-build version - yet?). While those operators who can live with less capability will be able to acquire cheap early-build frames and convert them.


User currently offlineJack From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 116 posts, RR: 0
Reply 84, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3067 times:

Isn't there going to be a bit of an issue of availability for airlines who want to purchase A330 for conversion given that there are 3 engine suppliers and early build A330s had a mix of them all. More recently the Trent is in the majority, but that was not really the case at the start.

Not an issue for Qatar or anyone who converts their current fleet, but must be an issue for others?

Perhaps the rollover of fleets for 787 or A350 will provide groups of similar engined machines ready for conversion.


User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6926 posts, RR: 63
Reply 85, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2999 times:

Quoting Jack (Reply 84):
Isn't there going to be a bit of an issue of availability for airlines who want to purchase A330 for conversion given that there are 3 engine suppliers

Not really. Most end-users for converted planes (eg the A300) aren't the original customers. They'll take what they get - PW, GE or RR. Not infrequently, they convert frames with different engines - FedEx does it all the time.

The early build A330s are with Thai (PW), Malaysia (PW), Cathay (RR), Garuda (RR), Philippines (GE) with various ex-Air Inter and sometime Aer Lingus / Sabena GE A330s knocking around. I'm guessing (and I stress "guessing") these'll be the first candidates for conversion. I doubt if engine type will be a major factor - though it will most likely affect the price.


User currently offlineirshava From Ukraine, joined Oct 2011, 214 posts, RR: 0
Reply 86, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 2861 times:

Now Akbar doesn't have to buy 29 B763Fs   Good news - totally expected after the Dubai Air Show when Akbar said that he wanted to convert his A330s.


“If you were born without wings, do nothing to prevent them from growing.”
User currently offlineodwyerpw From Mexico, joined Dec 2004, 864 posts, RR: 3
Reply 87, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 2777 times:

This is a much needed addition to the Airbus portfolio. Should help to keep older A330pax prices higher on the used market as they are phased out for 787/350. May create demand for planes that might even shield leasors from having the residuals drop on these planes as newer fuel efficient models are delivered.


Quiero una vida simple en Mexico. Nada mas.
User currently offlineJerseyFlyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 641 posts, RR: 0
Reply 88, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2437 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 85):
The early build A330s

................

These are of course the least capable in terms of lift - maybe they will be skipped and some later frames converted first?


User currently offlineanfromme From Ireland, joined Feb 2012, 453 posts, RR: 11
Reply 89, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2172 times:

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 76):
The whole debate on if FX was even looking at the A330f would be under the assumption that they are even on talking terms from the A380 fiasco.

I'd say we're pretty sure they're still talking to them, as they officially acknowledged that they were evaluating the A330-200F against the 767-300F.

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 79):
Can you explain to me what Airbus offers to counter the 748F and the 777f?? Not trying to spark a different debate but you can clearly see Airbus offers 1 model to the 4 you can get with a Boeing model (757, 767, 777, 747)

If you're counting the 757 as a Boeing freighter model, you should surely allow the A300F and A310F as well?
As well as the 737 Classic for Boeing.

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 76):
If the A330f is a goner is still to be determined [...] FX is now on board, UPS is likely never going away from its 767 ops and DHL now flys both 767's and 777's. I can't really see anybody else who would order anymore a330f in large numbers to quantify its existence, aside from the trickle of passenger operators who would order it.

You assume that nobody will order from A and B, nor operate A and B in parallel. That may be the case or it mightn't. It would, however, go quite contrary to what FedEx, UPS and DHL have been doing for ages.

Just to quantify what we're talking about with regard to new-built freighters:
First order for an A330-200F was in January 2007 (pretty much exactly 14 years after the first order for a 767-300F).
So at this point, the A330-200F has been on sale for five years exactly (19 years for the 767-300F).
Here's a comaprison of the two models five years into their sales life, plus the current total for each. I've added the 777F for comparison as I believe there is no doubting in either the A or B camp that it's a pretty good and successful freighter.

After five years*:
A330-200F: 62
767-300F: 33
777F: 71
Total to date:
A330-200F: 62
767-300F: 111
777F: 127
* First order dates: A330-200F - January 2007, 767-300F - January 1993, 777F - May 2005

To me, this indicates that it's a bit early to call a freighter a flop after just having been on sale for five years.
That said, I'm sure neither manufacturer would mind any of those numbers being higher than they are.
By the way - EIS of the P2F 767-300 was 2008 - since then, Boeing still sold 29 new-builts.

Another factor that has been mentioned a few times already is demand for the passenger model. The assumption is that if the pax model is in high demand, the manufacturers are less keen (and able) to sell the freighter.
So here go the same plane types again, but this time I'm just listing all pax variants.

Within five years of first Freighter order*:
A330: 323
767: 182
777: 371
Total since first Freighter order**
A330: 323
767: 389
777: 555
* I'm using the same baseline dates here, i.e. "After five years" refers to five years after the first order for the respective freighter. So for the A330, this includes all orders between January 2007 and January 2012.
**Total orders for all pax variants since the initial order of the respective F variant.


Now - back to the A330P2F; I think that 2016 as an EIS target is actually a good date for this; at that point, used pax A330s should become available in some numbers. With regard to whether it will hurt A330-200F sales - not necessarily. The A300 was offered in parallel to a pax conversion, and the new-built freighter was still able to sell in good enough numbers to basically keep the line alive for the last few years.



Flown on: A300B4, A310-200/-300, A319, A320-100/-200, A321-200, A330-200, A340-500/-600, A380-800, An-24, An-26, ATR42,
User currently offlineanfromme From Ireland, joined Feb 2012, 453 posts, RR: 11
Reply 90, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1897 times:

Flight Global has this analysis on what drove Airbus to launch the A330 P2F at this point.
It's a lengthy piece that also has some data not just on the size of the global MD-10F/A300F/A310F for the replacement of which the A330-200F/A330P2F would compete, but also on residual values of A330s that could be earmarked for conversion.
It also highlights how in the view of some potential operators, the amount of A330s available for conversion would be a key factor.

Flight and the analyst they interviewed don't see the availability of a P2F option being offered alongside the new-built freighter (for the A330-200F, anyway) as a threat to the new-built programme, citing the 767-300 as an example. As mentioned above, I personally would also point to the A300F and A300P2F.



Flown on: A300B4, A310-200/-300, A319, A320-100/-200, A321-200, A330-200, A340-500/-600, A380-800, An-24, An-26, ATR42,
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...
The End Of Airbus 'Launch Aid' As We Know It? posted Tue Oct 11 2005 13:32:44 by NAV20
Boeing's Stonecipher On Airbus Launch Aid... posted Thu Sep 9 2004 22:11:37 by Ulfinator
Airbus To Launch A320 NEO Wednesday (1.Dec) posted Tue Nov 30 2010 14:07:07 by Eaa3
Airbus To Launch ''New'' HGW A330-300 (235T) posted Thu Nov 25 2010 03:51:14 by WINGS
AvWeek: Airbus May Launch NEO Without Big Order posted Mon Nov 22 2010 02:36:34 by keesje
WTO Rules Launch Aid For Airbus Was Partially Illegal posted Fri Sep 4 2009 11:48:57 by Revelation
Airbus Getting Up To €3.5B Launch Aid For A350 posted Fri Jun 5 2009 14:18:07 by N1786b
AerCap Launch A320 Airbus Freighter Conversion posted Wed Jul 16 2008 03:25:27 by PanAm_DC10
Airbus Poised To Launch A320 P2F Conversion posted Wed Nov 21 2007 11:18:16 by Zeke
Should Airbus Re-launch A350 Non XWB? posted Fri Oct 6 2006 11:33:24 by OyKIE