EBJ68 wrote:

Given that the A330's wing span is an issue, so far as freight carriers go, why wouldn't the freighter model of the 787 also be a problem for freight operators, given the difference between their wing spans is a mere 1 foot? As has been said here on a.net many times over, the airline and airfreight markets fluctuate, sometimes in good ways and sometimes in bad. What we expect won't happen can, and what we don't expect does. Might be best to wait and see. I suspect the future might, in fact, hold promise for the Boeing 787 freighter and a possible A330neo freighter too. The possibilities are what make being an aviation fan so fascinating.

Seems like what market is looking for here is a 787F with folding wing tips.

kitplane01 wrote:

The 747-8F is quite large, and the 777F is both large and yesterday's technology.

Now that's an interesting preamble. 777F is very little different from "today's technology" 787. They even have common type rating.

kitplane01 wrote:

Therefore I predict the A330neo will be the next widebody to gain a from the factory freighter variant. Airbus would to sell more, there are slots to be had, the technology is good (especially for not-super-long stage lengths) and cost to make a freighter variant should be minimal. Finally, a freighter A330neo would feed right into the military program of A330neo tanker aircraft.

A330neo is actually OLDER than 777F. And this is the first time I hear about A330neo tanker program. May I see your sources of information?

The market for a possible 787F and a A330Fneo would be essential the same. Similar payload at a similar range.

The A330Fneo would have a similar range to a 777F at full payload with a lower fuel burn per t.

mjoelnir wrote:

The market for a possible 787F and a A330Fneo would be essential the same. Similar payload at a similar range.

The A330Fneo would have a similar range to a 777F at full payload with a lower fuel burn per t.

My calculations show less range than the 777F even with a MTOW increase to activate the center fuel tank of the A338F.

That said, Airbus has a potential market. As I said before, 200 examples if 4,300nm+ range, only 50 without the center tank.

Boeing will counter with a 778F, one day. 2023 EIS at the absolute earliest and I see the 797 program distracting to later (as in 2027)..

I'd love to see the PowerPoint within Airbus.

Lightsaber

Spacepope wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

OEW 120t instead of 109T.
Payload both 69t
Fuel 62t instead of 55t and that at 10% lower fuel burn would mean about 5000nm instead of 4000nm range with the same payload. That is the range offered by the 777F, 4970nm, at full payload.

And here's the real meat. The 777f is hauling 103t to that 5000nm range, rather than 69t. The ton-mile efficiency argument falls down a bit when you need to run 1.5 A330neoF to lift the sameamount of payload the same distance.

I don't think that freight comes in 103t increments.

There must be routes that need 50t, and the 777 is overkill. There must also be routes that need 150t, and using 1.5 777's is painful, but using 3 A330s works better.

Polot wrote:

The A330F will never be a direct 777F competitor, Airbus needs to do a A350F for that. What a new build A330F needs is a clear niche where operators can say wow, this is clearly better in this role that ABC can’t do but XYZ is overkill, as currently it doesn’t really have one (mostly as a result of the reasoning behind the development of the A330F in the first place). The current A330F doesn’t have enough payload/range to separate it from the 763F (which can do like 90% of what the A330F can while being cheaper and taking up less room). That doesn’t mean it needs to match the 777F range, but it needs enough to be more than a regional freighter.

I agree that A330neoF needs to have a niche where is it clearly better than the competitor. But I claim it would. It's much smaller than a 777, and it has much better economics than a 767.

smartplane wrote:

If you want to generate premium freight margins, frequency, frequency, frequency.
If you are busy consolidating 103t, you are a margin bottom feeder. Better to operate a couple of NB freighters, and drop some customers.

But does that kind of daily freight O&D demand exist to fill a 737 or A320 freighter?

As I understand it, freighter utilization is generally low hence widebodies and their larger capacities are favored since you can consolidate a full load on them for those one or two scheduled services.

2175301 wrote:

EBJ68 wrote:

Given that the A330's wing span is an issue, so far as freight carriers go, why wouldn't the freighter model of the 787 also be a problem for freight operators, given the difference between their wing spans is a mere 1 foot? As has been said here on a.net many times over, the airline and airfreight markets fluctuate, sometimes in good ways and sometimes in bad. What we expect won't happen can, and what we don't expect does. Might be best to wait and see. I suspect the future might, in fact, hold promise for the Boeing 787 freighter and a possible A330neo freighter too. The possibilities are what make being an aviation fan so fascinating.

One area I see a potential market niche for the potential B787F (or P2F) is long routes with medium heavy freight needs. That may reduce the number of times some freight is moved between aircraft. In such a case operators may be more open to using a wider wingspan than the older MD/767 aircraft. The 787 would fit into any place that can handle a 747 or 777; and I would expect that it would carry more cargo than the B767 and A330.

My guess is that we are at least 8 years away from any decisions on weather to actually develop a 787P2F or 787F. A lot can change in that time-frame. At least Boeing made the provisions for it so that it can be considered.

Have a great day,

I wonder Airbus will even be selling A330neos in 8 years (or 10). That's why I was speculating about the A330neoF.

Hard to imagine the A330neo selling well when the 787 is available without an excess wait for production slots. Also, the 787 will have a much more clear aftermarket than the A330, which effects financing. I really think the A330neo needs something to help it compete against the 787, or it will have a short production life.

2175301 wrote:

EBJ68 wrote:

Given that the A330's wing span is an issue, so far as freight carriers go, why wouldn't the freighter model of the 787 also be a problem for freight operators, given the difference between their wing spans is a mere 1 foot? As has been said here on a.net many times over, the airline and airfreight markets fluctuate, sometimes in good ways and sometimes in bad. What we expect won't happen can, and what we don't expect does. Might be best to wait and see. I suspect the future might, in fact, hold promise for the Boeing 787 freighter and a possible A330neo freighter too. The possibilities are what make being an aviation fan so fascinating.

One area I see a potential market niche for the potential B787F (or P2F) is long routes with medium heavy freight needs. That may reduce the number of times some freight is moved between aircraft. In such a case operators may be more open to using a wider wingspan than the older MD/767 aircraft. The 787 would fit into any place that can handle a 747 or 777; and I would expect that it would carry more cargo than the B767 and A330.

My guess is that we are at least 8 years away from any decisions on weather to actually develop a 787P2F or 787F. A lot can change in that time-frame. At least Boeing made the provisions for it so that it can be considered.

Have a great day,

I wonder Airbus will even be selling A330neos in 8 years (or 10). That's why I was speculating about the A330neoF.

Hard to imagine the A330neo selling well when the 787 is available without an excess wait for production slots. Also, the 787 will have a much more clear aftermarket than the A330, which effects financing. I really think the A330neo needs something to help it compete against the 787, or it will have a short production life.

2175301 wrote:

My guess is that we are at least 8 years away from any decisions on weather to actually develop a 787P2F or 787F.

A little question here. How easy would it be to convert passenger 787s (and A350s) to freighters compared to your traditional metal frames?

If Boeing launches a 787F it will be on the second generation models (think: 787-10ER Max) and it will use the strengthened gear and also folding wingtips to suddenly...make sense in the market. A folding tip conversion (P2F) wouldn't make sense anyway for another 15 years with the CFP frames in service (all 787 of them).

2175301 wrote:

EBJ68 wrote:

Given that the A330's wing span is an issue, so far as freight carriers go, why wouldn't the freighter model of the 787 also be a problem for freight operators, given the difference between their wing spans is a mere 1 foot? As has been said here on a.net many times over, the airline and airfreight markets fluctuate, sometimes in good ways and sometimes in bad. What we expect won't happen can, and what we don't expect does. Might be best to wait and see. I suspect the future might, in fact, hold promise for the Boeing 787 freighter and a possible A330neo freighter too. The possibilities are what make being an aviation fan so fascinating.

One area I see a potential market niche for the potential B787F (or P2F) is long routes with medium heavy freight needs. That may reduce the number of times some freight is moved between aircraft. In such a case operators may be more open to using a wider wingspan than the older MD/767 aircraft. The 787 would fit into any place that can handle a 747 or 777; and I would expect that it would carry more cargo than the B767 and A330.

My guess is that we are at least 8 years away from any decisions on weather to actually develop a 787P2F or 787F. A lot can change in that time-frame. At least Boeing made the provisions for it so that it can be considered.

Have a great day,

If there is a market for the 787F, than there is a market for the A330Fneo. Similar range, similar payload, similar wing span, similar fuel burn. If there is no market for the A330Fneo, than there is no market for the 787F.

I don’t expect a 787F unless they stretch and up MTOW.

bigjku wrote:

I don’t expect a 787F unless they stretch and up MTOW.

If the 787F ever becomes a thing, it will almost certainly use the 787-9 platform as the base as that would provide the optimum size and operating weights for such a program.

Stitch wrote:

bigjku wrote:

I don’t expect a 787F unless they stretch and up MTOW.

If the 787F ever becomes a thing, it will almost certainly use the 787-9 platform as the base as that would provide the optimum size and operating weights for such a program.

I agree. My conception would be a MTOW increase to allow more range on the 10 being brought down to the 9F. Or a stretch to an 11 with a new MTOW being brought down to the 10 which might be the F.

2175301 wrote:

My guess is that we are at least 8 years away from any decisions on weather to actually develop a 787P2F or 787F. A lot can change in that time-frame. At least Boeing made the provisions for it so that it can be considered.

Have a great day,

I wonder if the A330neo will even be in production in 8 or 10 years. The 787 has better fuel burn numbers. It also has a much more clear aftermarket, which matters to financiers. When the 787 slots become available, I would image most airlines would prefer that over the A330neo.

Which is kind of my point. Unless Aibus does something, I imagine the A330neo has a short lifespan.

Polot wrote:

The A330F will never be a direct 777F competitor, Airbus needs to do a A350F for that. What a new build A330F needs is a clear niche where operators can say wow, this is clearly better in this role that ABC can’t do but XYZ is overkill, as currently it doesn’t really have one (mostly as a result of the reasoning behind the development of the A330F in the first place). The current A330F doesn’t have enough payload/range to separate it from the 763F (which can do like 90% of what the A330F can while being cheaper and taking up less room). That doesn’t mean it needs to match the 777F range, but it needs enough to be more than a regional freighter.

I would think an A330neoF does have a clear niche it can dominate. It's much more economical than a 767F, and much smaller than a 777F. You'd think that combination should generate some sales.

kitplane01 wrote:

Spacepope wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

OEW 120t instead of 109T.
Payload both 69t
Fuel 62t instead of 55t and that at 10% lower fuel burn would mean about 5000nm instead of 4000nm range with the same payload. That is the range offered by the 777F, 4970nm, at full payload.

And here's the real meat. The 777f is hauling 103t to that 5000nm range, rather than 69t. The ton-mile efficiency argument falls down a bit when you need to run 1.5 A330neoF to lift the sameamount of payload the same distance.

I don't think that freight comes in 103t increments.

There must be routes that need 50t, and the 777 is overkill. There must also be routes that need 150t, and using 1.5 777's is painful, but using 3 A330s works better.

Kitplane, if there is demand for more than daily, freight goes partial higher frequency.

Oh, I see a large market for a longer range (higher MTOW) A338F. But the example you give would be run 10x/week. Or daily 777F and daily A338F, not 3X A338F.

The issue is the A332 based freighter lacks the natural range this size of plane will fly. Only if the center tank is activated with a minimum of 8 tons of fuel at full payload should we discuss volume production of the A338F.

The current A330F has range issues. That must be fixed first and that requires even more MTOW.

Lightsaber

2175301 wrote:

My guess is that we are at least 8 years away from any decisions on weather to actually develop a 787P2F or 787F.

A little question here. How much more work would have to go into converting a passenger 787 or A350 to a freighter compared to traditional metal frames? And will the different barrel construction approaches used by Boeing and Airbus be a factor?

bigjku wrote:

Stitch wrote:

bigjku wrote:

I don’t expect a 787F unless they stretch and up MTOW.

If the 787F ever becomes a thing, it will almost certainly use the 787-9 platform as the base as that would provide the optimum size and operating weights for such a program.

I agree. My conception would be a MTOW increase to allow more range on the 10 being brought down to the 9F. Or a stretch to an 11 with a new MTOW being brought down to the 10 which might be the F.

A MTOW increase would need a bigger MLG and more structure. The new frames are not build with endless growth potential. The 777 started out as the 777-200 with two 6 wheel bogies and 247 MTOW. The 787-9/10 uses two 4 wheel bogies, slightly smaller footprint in area than the A330 bogies, to carry 254 t, straight to the upper limit.

Freighters often do much shorter trips with fuel stops as they are heavily loaded.

New generation aircraft show their biggest fuel burn advantage on long haul flights. On short flights older and lighter aircraft can remain competitive. The A330NEO freighter wont have big demand. On really short trips the NEO actually has greater trip costs than the CEO.

mjoelnir wrote:

bigjku wrote:

Stitch wrote:

If the 787F ever becomes a thing, it will almost certainly use the 787-9 platform as the base as that would provide the optimum size and operating weights for such a program.

I agree. My conception would be a MTOW increase to allow more range on the 10 being brought down to the 9F. Or a stretch to an 11 with a new MTOW being brought down to the 10 which might be the F.

A MTOW increase would need a bigger MLG and more structure. The new frames are not build with endless growth potential. The 777 started out as the 777-200 with two 6 wheel bogies and 247 MTOW. The 787-9/10 uses two 4 wheel bogies, slightly smaller footprint in area than the A330 bogies, to carry 254 t, straight to the upper limit.

I think the 789 is probably the best bet for freighter work as it has a good balance of payload and volume. The 788, if built like a shorter 789 with the strengthening, weight savings and same MTOW, would be an absolute payload beast but I really doubt many customers would be interested.

After comparing the Payload range graphs of the 332F v 767F, I doubt any range or payload issues are the reason the 767 dominates.
The 332F can carry 65T 3750nm or 50T 5000nm. The 767F can carry 55T 3250nm, 50T 3750nm, and only 35T 5000nm.
Therefore there must be other reasons. The obvious first place to look imo is that to achieve the figures above the 332F needs 233T MTOW, whereas the 767F requires 186 MTOW, a 47T difference, to carry 10T more load, 500nm further.
AS RJMZ points out, freighters often fly much shortwe distances, so I am speculating that the xtra payload of the 332F does not make up for the xtra MTOW. (in general terms), and range.
So I can't see how a 330NEOF of some description will help this.
Ruscoe

All of the freight airlines are flying Boeing so their pilots, ground crews, office, and maintenance are being trained by Boeing, have points of contact they are ordering things from, and are regularly interacting. Occasionally a salesman drops by that wants to sell a different program that might not have all of the needed parts in stock, sure the parts common to the pax planes are but the freighter specific parts are probably not in stock in say ANC. The plane must be 'best in class' to make this jump worth it. The A330-200F had a 2010 EIS, so that sales guy has stopped by a couple dozen times, but only 42 orders in over a decade.

RJMAZ wrote:

Freighters often do much shorter trips with fuel stops as they are heavily loaded.

Freighters likely seldom go out with full tanks as they are most-effective when loaded to near MZFW, which limits how much remaining of the MTOW can be used for fuel tankage. The 747-400ER and 747-8 could do Asia to North America non-stop, but they would trade many multiples of payload weight compared to fuel weight to do it. By doing a stop in ANC, they can take their full payload and burn little to no extra fuel because the trip fuel for the two stages (say PVG-ANC and ANC-PVG) is lower thanks to a much lower take-off weight compared to doing PVG-MEM non-stop and having to tank the fuel for the entire journey.

FedEx is an exception with their 777 non-stops between China and their US hubs, but they carry mostly light packages (consumer electronics like phones, tablets and laptops) so they don't come near MZFW (instead hitting their volumetric limits) so they can tank the fuel necessary for a non-stop.

kitplane01 wrote:

I would think an A330neoF does have a clear niche it can dominate. It's much more economical than a 767F, and much smaller than a 777F. You'd think that combination should generate some sales.

The A330-200F is pretty much spot-on as an MD-10F replacement in terms of payload volume, payload weight and design range. However, it doesn't fit in an MD-10 ramp space (it needs the next size up). The 767-300F will carry 90% of the payload volume of an MD-10 and 75% of the payload weight 10% farther and will fit in an MD-10 ramp. Hence why FedEx and UPS, operators of large A300 (and A310 in the case of FedEx) went with the 767F over the A330F when it came time to replace their MD-10s. The 767F will also carry more payload by volume and weight farther than an A300F or A310F so it will almost assuredly be the replacement for those fleets, as well (and in fact the 767F has replaced the A310F at FedEx).

But for operators who have larger ramp space, the A330-200F has often been the platform of choice. Operators like Qatar and Turkish, who also operate the 777F and 747F, have chosen the A330F over the 767F.

kitplane01 wrote:

FrenchPotatoEye wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

The 747-8F is quite large, and the 777F is both large and yesterday's technology.

Funny, you must have missed TK buying yet more 777F jets and ignore the A330F.

Considering the A330F has arguably been the worst return on Airbus" widebody investment and the overall A330neo family struggling for sales, I doubt an A330neoF would solve issues.

There's no escaping the fact that Airbus is totally dead in the widebody freighter game. Completely dead. Even an A359F wouldn't change the dynamics since Boeing has plans for a 777X freighter too.

I believe that the A330neo has lower cost per ton*kilometer than a 777F, thanks to the new engine. I totally agree the 777F has been a success, but the technology is old and the 777XF is nowehere to be seen (yet).

The 767 is still being produced. Spare parts are not an issue. The 777F is still being produced, is not outdated, sure older tech, but no shortage of spares. The A330 just is not ideal for freighter, which isn’t a bad thing. For UPS and FedEX (the largest operators) the NEO doesn’t solve any problems, certainly not at the prices. The A332 size is too close to 767, it would need to be A333 size, which has never materialized, aside from a few? Conversions.

B and A are selling so many new build WBs (and NBs) there is no pressure to build new model freighters. 76F 77F 747Fs are what we are stuck with as a result.

I don't understand people whose arguments center around " old technology", "old design" as the reason what's working isn't up to their ideals, while proposing something not on the drawing board that would be expensive as hell to produce, certify and sell at anything but a loss. Freight doesn't care. Freight operators want reliable and cheap and used is OK. Yes, people need something to dream about regardless of practicality to the operator. next week we'll have someone pushing the 797F ... And why didn't the Concord have a second life as a package freighter???

airzona11 wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

FrenchPotatoEye wrote:

Funny, you must have missed TK buying yet more 777F jets and ignore the A330F.

Considering the A330F has arguably been the worst return on Airbus" widebody investment and the overall A330neo family struggling for sales, I doubt an A330neoF would solve issues.

There's no escaping the fact that Airbus is totally dead in the widebody freighter game. Completely dead. Even an A359F wouldn't change the dynamics since Boeing has plans for a 777X freighter too.

I believe that the A330neo has lower cost per ton*kilometer than a 777F, thanks to the new engine. I totally agree the 777F has been a success, but the technology is old and the 777XF is nowehere to be seen (yet).

The 767 is still being produced. Spare parts are not an issue. The 777F is still being produced, is not outdated, sure older tech, but no shortage of spares. The A330 just is not ideal for freighter, which isn’t a bad thing. For UPS and FedEX (the largest operators) the NEO doesn’t solve any problems, certainly not at the prices. The A332 size is too close to 767, it would need to be A333 size, which has never materialized, aside from a few? Conversions.

B and A are selling so many new build WBs (and NBs) there is no pressure to build new model freighters. 76F 77F 747Fs are what we are stuck with as a result.

I don't know if the wingspan will really be an issue going forward. DHL are happy to integrate them into the fleet, albight with a primary hub (Leipzig) that offers a little more flexibility then MEM or SDF in regards to ramp space. I am pretty sure the day will come where FX/5F will start looking at them, for pure economic reasons. Fuel burn of an A330P2F or even a NEO F versus an MD11 is a no brainer, for the sake of losing one or 2 parking bays in a ramp reconfiguration.

cougar15 wrote:

airzona11 wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

I believe that the A330neo has lower cost per ton*kilometer than a 777F, thanks to the new engine. I totally agree the 777F has been a success, but the technology is old and the 777XF is nowehere to be seen (yet).

The 767 is still being produced. Spare parts are not an issue. The 777F is still being produced, is not outdated, sure older tech, but no shortage of spares. The A330 just is not ideal for freighter, which isn’t a bad thing. For UPS and FedEX (the largest operators) the NEO doesn’t solve any problems, certainly not at the prices. The A332 size is too close to 767, it would need to be A333 size, which has never materialized, aside from a few? Conversions.

B and A are selling so many new build WBs (and NBs) there is no pressure to build new model freighters. 76F 77F 747Fs are what we are stuck with as a result.

I don't know if the wingspan will really be an issue going forward. DHL are happy to integrate them into the fleet, albight with a primary hub (Leipzig) that offers a little more flexibility then MEM or SDF in regards to ramp space. I am pretty sure the day will come where FX/5F will start looking at them, for pure economic reasons. Fuel burn of an A330P2F or even a NEO F versus an MD11 is a no brainer, for the sake of losing one or 2 parking bays in a ramp reconfiguration.

So when cutting parking bays, what routes are you willing to axe? You cut 2 bays, you’re cutting 2widebody routes to 2 destinations in that sort. FedEx and UPS have made it clear that they are more than happy to use a freighter that fits their infrastructure and charge a premium for space on the flight. DHL in the US is still the massive failure as it always was since the Airborne buyout, and they contract their transatlantic lift with 744 and 772 freighters. The A330 p2f might work ok in Germany and possibly Hong Kong, but getting the biggest freighter operators in the world to bite is a tall order.

[quote="airzona11"][quote="kitplane01"][

B and A are selling so many new build WBs (and NBs) there is no pressure to build new model freighters. 76F 77F 747Fs are what we are stuck with as a result.[/quote

A needs every 330 sale it can get as only the 32xx and 359 is selling in commercial quantities.

Planeflyer wrote:

airzona11 wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

[

B and A are selling so many new build WBs (and NBs) there is no pressure to build new model freighters. 76F 77F 747Fs are what we are stuck with as a result.[/quote

A needs every 330 sale it can get as only the 32xx and 359 is selling in commercial quantities.

Totally true, but is that worth the cost of developing a dedicated freighter platform that doesn't exist?

kitplane01 wrote:

itchief wrote:

The problem with your prediction is that the A330neo will not fit into the same space that the DC-10/MD-11/767F will fit into. The 767 has a wing span of 47.5m. That is a big reason that the A330F(60m) is a slow seller and a A330neo(64m) will have an even tougher time with the fit. Airport ramp space is not cheap and it is not easy to add.

I think that's true, but they cannot keep flying 767s forever. It's older tech, with higher fuel costs. How long do you think they will keep buying new 767s? I totally agree the existing 767s will be flying for a long time, but some cargo operators have enough utilization they will get better economics from a new airframe, and the 767 is fuel ineffecient.

The A333 was certified in '93 - only 11 years after the 767. Then again, innovation stopped after '88.

kanban wrote:

I don't understand people whose arguments center around " old technology", "old design" as the reason what's working isn't up to their ideals, while proposing something not on the drawing board that would be expensive as hell to produce, certify and sell at anything but a loss. Freight doesn't care. Freight operators want reliable and cheap and used is OK. Yes, people need something to dream about regardless of practicality to the operator. next week we'll have someone pushing the 797F ... And why didn't the Concord have a second life as a package freighter???

The argument is simple.

1) Newer technology aircraft like the 787 and the A330neo have lower fuel burn than older technology planes like the 777F.
2) Some operators utilize their planes many hour per day.
3) For these operators, the extra cost of new build is less than the saving in fuel.

If someone made claims like this on passenger aircraft, it would make total sense. But freighters often fly fewer hours per day, and therefore save less fuel per day. But some (a few) freighters are utilized enough to make the savings worthwhile.

And the Concorde did have a freighter variant .. but it only sold to Air India and South African Airways so most people have never heard of it.

kitplane01 wrote:

But freighters often fly fewer hours per day, and therefore save less fuel per day. But some (a few) freighters are utilized enough to make the savings worthwhile.

I expect the majority of those frames are the smaller turboprop and narrowbody frames as opposed to the larger widebodies like the 767/A330/777/747.

kanban wrote:

And why didn't the Concord have a second life as a package freighter???

FedEx did a serious study with BA and AF to lease frames and convert them into freighters between 1981 and 1983.

kitplane01 wrote:

]
The argument is simple.

1) Newer technology aircraft like the 787 and the A330neo have lower fuel burn than older technology planes like the 777F.

Please stop calling the 777F old tech. It really isn't. You saying so doesn't make it true.

If you want old, then please remember that the A330 (including neo) is an older design than the 777F.

And that IS a fact unlike your untruth.

As noted before, 777F carries more cargo and can make money to offset whatever perceived fuel burn metrics you claim. It's about revenue. The 777F has much better economics than any A330F or non-existent A330neo-F.

Sheesh.

Something that many forget: The 767 has had one major engine upgrade (and perhaps some PIPs). There is a possibility that if it is actually developed that the 797 engine could be retrofitable onto the 767. If that happens... then the 767 becomes one the most fuel efficient freighter in its class (and perhaps several classes).

Have a great day,

I doubt very much Airbus will bother with a 330neoF. The market is too small. Most of the world's cargo will be travelling in the hold of these ridiculously long passenger planes (77W, 351, 78J, 779...) and what doesn't fit in there will be flown by 748Fs and surviving 744Fs, 744BCFs, An-124s etc. I don't believe in new built 787F and 350F neither. Maybe a conversion program at some point later in the programs' lives (if they figure out how to cut cargo doors in composite panels).

RJMAZ wrote:

Freighters often do much shorter trips with fuel stops as they are heavily loaded.

New generation aircraft show their biggest fuel burn advantage on long haul flights. On short flights older and lighter aircraft can remain competitive. The A330NEO freighter wont have big demand. On really short trips the NEO actually has greater trip costs than the CEO.

The main difference to the A330Fceo could be the 251 t MTOW. An increase of 18 t, while OEW could increase by 8 t or less.

mjoelnir wrote:

The main difference to the A330Fceo could be the 251 t MTOW. An increase of 18 t, while OEW could increase by 8 t or less.

I expect there is nothing structural preventing Airbus from raising the A330-200F's MTOW to between 242,000 and 251,000kg if there is a desire from current or potential customers to do so.

What would be the cost to develop and certify an A330neo?

They already have a freighter version of the base airframe, so there's not much more development needed there. And the new engine integration work is completed with the passenger side of things. I'd imagine it would mostly be about testing and certification, wouldn't it?

FrenchPotatoEye wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

]
The argument is simple.

1) Newer technology aircraft like the 787 and the A330neo have lower fuel burn than older technology planes like the 777F.

Please stop calling the 777F old tech. It really isn't. You saying so doesn't make it true.

If you want old, then please remember that the A330 (including neo) is an older design than the 777F.

And that IS a fact unlike your untruth.

As noted before, 777F carries more cargo and can make money to offset whatever perceived fuel burn metrics you claim. It's about revenue. The 777F has much better economics than any A330F or non-existent A330neo-F.

Sheesh.

I think we agree about the facts, if not the words. We agree the 777 airframe is newer than the A330, but the A330neo engines are a generation ahead of the 777. The "old tech" is not the airframe, it's the engines.

Why do you think the 777F has better economics than the A330neoF? Do you think it burns less fuel per ton * kilometer?

I cannot find a chart for the cargo variants, but this chart shows the A330-300 as 2% more fuel efficient than the 777-300 for the passenger variant.
https://www.theicct.org/blog/staff/size ... efficiency The A330neo would be another 12% more fuel efficient than that.

Stitch wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

The main difference to the A330Fceo could be the 251 t MTOW. An increase of 18 t, while OEW could increase by 8 t or less.

I expect there is nothing structural preventing Airbus from raising the A330-200F's MTOW to between 242,000 and 251,000kg if there is a desire from current or potential customers to do so.

The A330neo will be anyway certified for 251t.

I agree that it would hardly be a big thing to raise the MTOW of the A330F to 242 t and provide 9 t more fuel, if some customer would need more range.

Erebus wrote:

What would be the cost to develop and certify an A330neo?

They already have a freighter version of the base airframe, so there's not much more development needed there. And the new engine integration work is completed with the passenger side of things. I'd imagine it would mostly be about testing and certification, wouldn't it?

That is why Airbus did not cancel the A338 - this could be the basis for military and freighter variants.

The closest Concorde came to flying freight operations was a proposal made to Fed Ex to modify two existing passenger models. However, passenger tickets sales increased to the point where the proposal never bore fruit.The planes that were to have been converted to freighters served as passenger carriers. I did a search of the internet using the search term "Concorde Freighters" and found nothing pointing to Air India or South African Airways using the plane in a freighter role.If they had, I'm confident the a.net photographers would have provided us with a ton of pictures because tthose would have been unique shots.

kitplane01 wrote:

FrenchPotatoEye wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

]
The argument is simple.

1) Newer technology aircraft like the 787 and the A330neo have lower fuel burn than older technology planes like the 777F.

Please stop calling the 777F old tech. It really isn't. You saying so doesn't make it true.

If you want old, then please remember that the A330 (including neo) is an older design than the 777F.

And that IS a fact unlike your untruth.

As noted before, 777F carries more cargo and can make money to offset whatever perceived fuel burn metrics you claim. It's about revenue. The 777F has much better economics than any A330F or non-existent A330neo-F.

Sheesh.

I think we agree about the facts, if not the words. We agree the 777 airframe is newer than the A330, but the A330neo engines are a generation ahead of the 777. The "old tech" is not the airframe, it's the engines.

Why do you think the 777F has better economics than the A330neoF? Do you think it burns less fuel per ton * kilometer?

I cannot find a chart for the cargo variants, but this chart shows the A330-300 as 2% more fuel efficient than the 777-300 for the passenger variant.
https://www.theicct.org/blog/staff/size ... efficiency The A330neo would be another 12% more fuel efficient than that.

Fuel cost is not the only thing in airplane economics, unless you are trying to fly an empty plane from empty airports where costs are negligible.

Profits and other operational costs need to be considered into this equation to determine whether an airplane is economical.

The 777F has a payload range that allows it to haul that sort of consolidated cargo loads it currently hauls across the Atlantic. Meaning that instead of having 1.5 A330F flights across the Atlantic, you could just do it with 1 777F. More economical to have just 1 plane and 1 set of crews.

And an A330F wouldn't even make it with a meaningful load across the Pacific non-stop, something which FedEx does with the 777F. If this was done with an A330F, it would require hopping across the ocean via Japan and ANC, more operational costs and delaying deliveries, which leaves them with less competitive advantage over their rivals.

And vs the 767F, other operational and capital/infrastructural costs make the A330F less economical than the 767F. Eg. Ramp space and airport fees.

EBJ68 wrote:

I did a search of the internet using the search term "Concorde Freighters" and found nothing pointing to Air India or South African Airways using the plane in a freighter role.If they had, I'm confident the a.net photographers would have provided us with a ton of pictures because those would have been unique shots.

Air India had two delivery position options for the passenger model reserved, however when British Minister for Aerospace Michael Heseltine visited Air India HQ in 1972 with the British prototype, Air India officials decided not to convert the delivery position options into firm orders.

South African Airways was never listed as a customer for the Concorde which meant they had no delivery position options.

kitplane01 wrote:

And the Concorde did have a freighter variant .. but it only sold to Air India and South African Airways so most people have never heard of it.

See above.

As noted by EBJ68, FedEx proposed in 1981 to take the last two Concorde frames under construction as freighters as well as lease three additional passenger frames from British Airways considered "surplus" and convert them to freighters, but the British and French Governments refused to guarantee a decade of support for the frames so FedEx withdrew their offer.

kitplane01 wrote:
"And the Concorde did have a freighter variant .. but it only sold to Air India and South African Airways so most people have never heard of it."

some people forget to use the sarcasm smilies...

However the TU-144 was used as a small package freighter (mail) before being mothballed.

One thing the 777F has over the A330F is the fact that you can carry much larger oversized freight through the door. Max height on a 77F is 116” high whereas as the max height on A330F is 94” high.

On the A330F you have to manually push the pallets which is not fun. On the 77F, its operated with a joystick as the floor has motors to move the pallets, the floor can even drop down to take shipments which are overheight.

jeffrey0032j wrote:

Fuel cost is not the only thing in airplane economics, unless you are trying to fly an empty plane from empty airports where costs are negligible.

Profits and other operational costs need to be considered into this equation to determine whether an airplane is economical.

The 777F has a payload range that allows it to haul that sort of consolidated cargo loads it currently hauls across the Atlantic. Meaning that instead of having 1.5 A330F flights across the Atlantic, you could just do it with 1 777F. More economical to have just 1 plane and 1 set of crews.

Isn't it only true when you have a demand of cargo volume between the capacity of an A330 and a B777? Anything less than that then it would be one A330 vs one B777, anything more than that then it would be two A330 vs two B777, both of which would give cost advantage to Airbus.

And an A330F wouldn't even make it with a meaningful load across the Pacific non-stop, something which FedEx does with the 777F. If this was done with an A330F, it would require hopping across the ocean via Japan and ANC, more operational costs and delaying deliveries, which leaves them with less competitive advantage over their rivals.

I don't think many freighter operators would skip ANC on their trans-Pacific flights?

kitplane01 wrote:

itchief wrote:

The problem with your prediction is that the A330neo will not fit into the same space that the DC-10/MD-11/767F will fit into. The 767 has a wing span of 47.5m. That is a big reason that the A330F(60m) is a slow seller and a A330neo(64m) will have an even tougher time with the fit. Airport ramp space is not cheap and it is not easy to add.

I think that's true, but they cannot keep flying 767s forever. It's older tech, with higher fuel costs. How long do you think they will keep buying new 767s? I totally agree the existing 767s will be flying for a long time, but some cargo operators have enough utilization they will get better economics from a new airframe, and the 767 is fuel ineffecient.

I think the 737 has proven to everyone by now, that an old platform can be reworked and when paired with new engines, is quite competitive with all the newer fbw stuff. I think the an older slightly less efficient plane, would be more than competitive with the right updates, If Boeing can pass the savings along. That costs savings might outweigh any efficiency gains. It’s clearly working well enough that airbus is basically mimicking Boeing strategy, where once they tried to dismiss it.

All these new state of the art planes are wonderful, if you can afford them.