QANTAS recently replaced one of their wet leased 744F's with a 748F. They did this because of the extra revenue opportunity associated with the larger aircraft.

Another important consideration revolves around turn around times. The QANTAS 747 freighters fly from Australia > China > USA > Australia. As such these freighters have very high utilisation rates. A nose door could result in quicker turn around times.

snasteve wrote:

I thought the 747 nose with the -8 extra length was the only thing able to move the long and skinny items ASAP for the oil industry. Without going to the Antonov?

There is hundreds of 747 freighters in service and many more parked. The sort of work you are talking about is not common and would not justify keeping a final assembly line open.

If you really want something light and long to go by air in the future Airbus would be able to provide a A330-743L.

travelhound wrote:

QANTAS recently replaced one of their wet leased 744F's with a 748F. They did this because of the extra revenue opportunity associated with the larger aircraft.

Another important consideration revolves around turn around times. The QANTAS 747 freighters fly from Australia > China > USA > Australia. As such these freighters have very high utilisation rates. A nose door could result in quicker turn around times.

Except you can’t use the full volume of the fuselage if you only use the nose door. Front opening clearance is only 8 feet through the nose door because of the cockpit floor. Iirc full height pallets of 10 feet can only go in through the side door. You lose close to 20% of your volumetric payload if you just use the nose door as you suggest.

Reading between the lines shows that the floor will not be brought up to standard freighter load capacity, which indicates that it will be primarily used by package delivery airlines and less by general freight carriers. This still leaves room for the 748F and 777F; but it is likely that one will cease production as there will be insufficient demand for both. Boeing is clearly unhappy about this, as in the past they have not hesitated to support planes converted by third parties. I think this is poor strategy on their part, and hope they reconsider. It is clear that there will be a large number of 77Ws becoming available in the next few years with a lot of life left in them, and at the same time the demand for package air freight is rapidly increasing. This seems like a good solution to several problems, and I hope it is successful.

SEPilot wrote:

Reading between the lines shows that the floor will not be brought up to standard freighter load capacity, which indicates that it will be primarily used by package delivery airlines and less by general freight carriers. This still leaves room for the 748F and 777F; but it is likely that one will cease production as there will be insufficient demand for both. Boeing is clearly unhappy about this, as in the past they have not hesitated to support planes converted by third parties. I think this is poor strategy on their part, and hope they reconsider. It is clear that there will be a large number of 77Ws becoming available in the next few years with a lot of life left in them, and at the same time the demand for package air freight is rapidly increasing. This seems like a good solution to several problems, and I hope it is successful.

It is a very poor long term strategy for Boeing not to support this conversion. For otherwise resale values drop further, hurting airlines and Leasing companies.

We've been waiting for a 777-300ERBCF, instead, a SF.

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

SEPilot wrote:

Reading between the lines shows that the floor will not be brought up to standard freighter load capacity, which indicates that it will be primarily used by package delivery airlines and less by general freight carriers. This still leaves room for the 748F and 777F; but it is likely that one will cease production as there will be insufficient demand for both. Boeing is clearly unhappy about this, as in the past they have not hesitated to support planes converted by third parties. I think this is poor strategy on their part, and hope they reconsider. It is clear that there will be a large number of 77Ws becoming available in the next few years with a lot of life left in them, and at the same time the demand for package air freight is rapidly increasing. This seems like a good solution to several problems, and I hope it is successful.

It is a very poor long term strategy for Boeing not to support this conversion. For otherwise resale values drop further, hurting airlines and Leasing companies.

We've been waiting for a 777-300ERBCF, instead, a SF.

Lightsaber

Exactly. And that will induce airlines to hold onto their 77Ws longer insread of buying 77Xs, or even induce them to switch to A350s.

zeke wrote:

That spells the death on the 747-8F

I see there is an existing thread for this viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1433187

As much as it hurts me I agree with you. I need to had to KPAE to spot the last few UPS 747s.

Do you think it would be possible to have a swing tail on the 777 like the 747 LCF to allow the same style of oversized cargo loading?

Okcflyer wrote:

I suspect floor beams are not being changed. Main deck will be density limited. Heavier items will go below deck. If unable to fit, that freight will move on a 77F or 747.

This is clearly targeted to the booming eCommerce market globally.

FYI ... UPS’s air shipments tend to be much denser than Fedex. It’s why they operate 747’s and stop in Alaska regularly where as FX over flies regularly.

I would like to see further analysis on the FYI. UPS does operate much denser flights than FedEx, that seem to have called for 747s over 777s. Specifically on the US-Asia routes where UPS's 747-8Fs spend most of their time. This is not to say the 77WP2F couldn't be a fit for UPS, just that from what has been demonstrated and stated, the 747 for UPS is a cornerstone of their operations.

In addition, how does the floor strength issue work into the operational needs of Atlas, Cargolux and Volga?

Spacepope wrote:

travelhound wrote:

QANTAS recently replaced one of their wet leased 744F's with a 748F. They did this because of the extra revenue opportunity associated with the larger aircraft.

Another important consideration revolves around turn around times. The QANTAS 747 freighters fly from Australia > China > USA > Australia. As such these freighters have very high utilisation rates. A nose door could result in quicker turn around times.

Except you can’t use the full volume of the fuselage if you only use the nose door. Front opening clearance is only 8 feet through the nose door because of the cockpit floor. Iirc full height pallets of 10 feet can only go in through the side door. You lose close to 20% of your volumetric payload if you just use the nose door as you suggest.

The nose loading option allows you to haul items that cannot be hauled in other airframes. It is a unique feature and one that Atlas, Cargolux and Volga have all stated it very important to them. For all 3 companies to put that much emphasis on it and what would replace it was telling. It wouldn't be used instead of the side door but in addition to or in place of when necessary.

Long term, 747-400Fs are getting long in the tooth. Something will need to replace them. Is there room for the 777-300F, 777F and 747-8F? Maybe, maybe not. I agree that the 747 won't be in production in 2030 but does it make it another 8-10 years in production or bow out earlier?

CX747 wrote:

Spacepope wrote:

travelhound wrote:

QANTAS recently replaced one of their wet leased 744F's with a 748F. They did this because of the extra revenue opportunity associated with the larger aircraft.

Another important consideration revolves around turn around times. The QANTAS 747 freighters fly from Australia > China > USA > Australia. As such these freighters have very high utilisation rates. A nose door could result in quicker turn around times.

Except you can’t use the full volume of the fuselage if you only use the nose door. Front opening clearance is only 8 feet through the nose door because of the cockpit floor. Iirc full height pallets of 10 feet can only go in through the side door. You lose close to 20% of your volumetric payload if you just use the nose door as you suggest.

The nose loading option allows you to haul items that cannot be hauled in other airframes. It is a unique feature and one that Atlas, Cargolux and Volga have all stated it very important to them. For all 3 companies to put that much emphasis on it and what would replace it was telling. It wouldn't be used instead of the side door but in addition to or in place of when necessary.

Long term, 747-400Fs are getting long in the tooth. Something will need to replace them. Is there room for the 777-300F, 777F and 747-8F? Maybe, maybe not. I agree that the 747 won't be in production in 2030 but does it make it another 8-10 years in production or bow out earlier?

I know all that, however the nose door is only economical for the usual freight loads if either the pallets are really long (you can slide some surprisingly very long items through the SCD, including helicopters I've seen) or not very tall. There is a reason the floor of the extended upper deck was removed and raised in the 200SUD/300/400 P2F conversions.

I have seen 747's land, open up the nose door, unload standard pallatised freight, reload new freight, close the door and fly off again.

I think there are more advantages to the nose door than just long freight.

speedbird52 wrote:

Do you think it would be possible to have a swing tail on the 777 like the 747 LCF to allow the same style of oversized cargo loading?

Perhaps, but it's just not a very good solution to the problem.

If you'll note, Boeing spent the $$$ to build a Dreamlifter facility at all the stations it visits.

Why?

The swing tail has a wind limit that isn't very generous, just like the Guppy did.

You simply can't unload it if the wind is too strong, the hinges will bend or break and then you are screwed.

Thus they now unload inside.

Working around the wind limits doesn't work out too well when your business is to haul out-sized goods on demand to random locations on an ad-hoc basis.

Revelation wrote:

speedbird52 wrote:

Do you think it would be possible to have a swing tail on the 777 like the 747 LCF to allow the same style of oversized cargo loading?

Perhaps, but it's just not a very good solution to the problem.

If you'll note, Boeing spent the $$$ to build a Dreamlifter facility at all the stations it visits.

Why?

The swing tail has a wind limit that isn't very generous, just like the Guppy did.

You simply can't unload it if the wind is too strong, the hinges will bend or break and then you are screwed.

Thus they now unload inside.

Working around the wind limits doesn't work out too well when your business is to haul out-sized goods on demand to random locations on an ad-hoc basis.

Is it true the cargo compartment of the Dreamlifters are unpressurized?

Spacepope wrote:

Is it true the cargo compartment of the Dreamlifters are unpressurized?

That is correct.

Revelation wrote:

speedbird52 wrote:

Do you think it would be possible to have a swing tail on the 777 like the 747 LCF to allow the same style of oversized cargo loading?

Perhaps, but it's just not a very good solution to the problem.

If you'll note, Boeing spent the $$$ to build a Dreamlifter facility at all the stations it visits.

Why?

The swing tail has a wind limit that isn't very generous, just like the Guppy did.

You simply can't unload it if the wind is too strong, the hinges will bend or break and then you are screwed.

Thus they now unload inside.

Working around the wind limits doesn't work out too well when your business is to haul out-sized goods on demand to random locations on an ad-hoc basis.

Also, a swing tail on a pressurized 777 would need a bunch of flange bolting. The thrust of the rear bulkhead at 7 psi is over 135 tons. That is a 20 mm bolt every 25 cm around the perimeter. Hard to get latching that works on that, a rotating bayonet possibly.

The dreamlifter is not pressurized. There is a bulkhead at the back of the cockpit / crew rest area.

Many 777s have already been scrapped due to no Freighter conversion being available. Reason being due to composite floor beams. I think it can still be done if Boeing were willing. There will be lots more 777s retired with usable life that don’t see any other use due to not being able to turn them in freighters

IAI/GECAS beat them to it. There's already a 77W conversion program.

Is hurt the right word? They have announced the 77WBCF, do these have the same floor beams as the older 772Es?

Or is the 77W because of the number of available frames? There was a lot of 77Es as well. Or is the 77W because Boeing will end the 747F? No nose door on the 77F and even the 744BCFs were the first to be parked, also less efficient than a purpose built 744F.

The time/cost of an BCF often are worth it, at the moment cargo demand is urgent needed for medical supplies etc, it can’t wait for an bunch of 777s to be properly converted.

In the short-term removing seats an bulk loading 777s is the best option.

Until someone could come up with an quick conversation project for an 77E/77W that costs less than currently does.

Combi’s are dead, but I’m sure an bunch of airlines are wishing some people of there 77Ws had the ability to be an combi right now.

KFTG wrote:

IAI/GECAS beat them to it. There's already a 77W conversion program.

What about for the 772?

UA444 wrote:

KFTG wrote:

IAI/GECAS beat them to it. There's already a 77W conversion program.

What about for the 772?

Probably not worth the effort - these are older and have less efficient engines. B777F new builds are probably the answer if you don't need the payload of the B77W conversion.

I didn't realize Boeing was a party to the IAI deal.
I stand corrected!

KFTG wrote:

IAI/GECAS beat them to it. There's already a 77W conversion program.

Yes, announced Oct 19. GECAS indicated they will convert possibly 2 dozen of their 77Ws. Not sure if they are beefing up the floor but the article does indicate a lower density that is suitable for package freighters. Besides the heavy pallets can go in the hold. It makes sense to do the 77W as there are over 800 available, similar to the 767 P2F's it did just the 767-300 ER, the most available.

The -300ERSF’s maximum structural payload of 101.6t and greater volume than the 777F mean it is optimised for the lower cargo densities of the e-commerce and express operators rather than the traditional general freight operators like Cargolux and Nippon Cargo, which operate with densities of around 9-10lb/cb ft (0.11-0.13kg/cb m), says Greener. “But at the cargo density sweet spot of around 7.5-8lb/cu ft, the -300ERSF can carry 20t more than a 777F, at 50% of the cost.”

https://www.flightglobal.com/mro/gecas- ... 17.article

Smart move by GE, supplementing the life of the life of the GE90 by making the 77W the defacto conversion. Utility of a conversion is heightened for current operators of the GE90 passenger/freighter. Additionally it increases the viability of a 772LR conversion; (the design included freighter considerations., not on the 772.)

FedEX stands out as a potential customer. Given that GE is FedEX's dominate engine supplier and a significant GE customer, are the initial frames destine for Memphis? Once its real; Atlas, western global, ...?

"Boeing hurt the 777 by not having a BCF option?" A rational Boeing tactical decision would have been to mute a BCF option and/or inhibit an OEM conversion option until bridge production(freighter) was satisfied... and until a paper A350F appeared on the horizon.

Application of a process is an excellent way to discover improvements and achieve economic efficiencies; discussed as the challenge for the 777 conversion. Respecting, COVID changes factors in the equation.
How does this affect the B772F order book?

The 777W would have a lot of volume. With dense cargo everything could go entirely under the floor. So the weak cabin floor won't be a big issue.

The conversions have a floating floor installed with rollers to spread out the point loads. There are weight limits on the pallet positions on the main deck but they have a few positions that have a stronger floor. I assume these positions are above the main wingbox. Another position could be in the tail just aft of the most rear LD3 position as the lower frame would be stronger without the space for the containers underneith.

A few airlines last week have removed their seats and are using the 777W for cargo. Most goes in the belly but there are I think 5 pallet positions on the main deck in these strong sections.

These weight limitations wouldn't be that hard to deal with from an operational perspective. Any parcel company that has lots of light parcels would be able to put these on the main deck. A proper conversion with metal floor beams isn't really needed.

simple answer to the original question.....no. moving on

Fixinthe757 wrote:

simple answer to the original question.....no. moving on

You might want to re-read the thread.

It does not seem that airlines pay much attention to the possibility, or lack thereof, of freighter conversion when they purchase aircraft. Which makes sense, when you consider that the residual value of the airframe after the airline is done with it is a very, very small part of overall costs over the service life of said airframe. With that said, how could the 777 possibly have been hurt by the lack of a freighter conversion? Especially when you consider that it has been arguably the most successful widebody in history, rivaled only by the A330, which has only recently had a P2F conversion (not available when most of them were ordered), and with very few of them having actually been converted.

Also to be considered is the reason there has been no P2F conversion for the 777; namely, the composite floor beams. If they had been aluminum and strong enough for normal freight, it would have raised the empty weight of the aircraft and caused it to either lose payload or range. The aggregate cost over the life of the airframe in terms of lost revenue/increased fuel consumption would likely far exceed any gain in the residual value of the airframe at the end of its airline life.

SEPilot wrote:

It does not seem that airlines pay much attention to the possibility, or lack thereof, of freighter conversion when they purchase aircraft. Which makes sense, when you consider that the residual value of the airframe after the airline is done with it is a very, very small part of overall costs over the service life of said airframe. With that said, how could the 777 possibly have been hurt by the lack of a freighter conversion? Especially when you consider that it has been arguably the most successful widebody in history, rivaled only by the A330, which has only recently had a P2F conversion (not available when most of them were ordered), and with very few of them having actually been converted.

Many airlines do pay attention to the depreciation rates of airplanes. It is especially true for leasing companies. Having a robust secondary market helps with financing for those airlines without access to unlimited capital.

If we look at the big 777-200ER operators, they often fly airplanes all the way to retirement (United, American, British Airways, Air France, etc). Those aren’t the type of airlines who sell off widebodies with enough useable life (usually 10+ years) to be freighter feedstock. There were some 777-200ERs sold off, but it is questionable if it was enough planes to provide feedstock to make freighter conversion lines viable.

The 777-300ER operators don’t necessarily operate the airplanes the same way. I would expect many more 777-300ERs to be sold At between 12-20 years of age which makes them the right age for freighter conversions. Without a freighter conversion market, where would these planes go? If they would have been parked lessors would be losing money on their investments, which pushes up rates.

Found some info about it online:

Damn this thing would be Beautiful!


https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=htt ... AdAAAAABAI


https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=htt ... AdAAAAABAO

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

SEPilot wrote:

It does not seem that airlines pay much attention to the possibility, or lack thereof, of freighter conversion when they purchase aircraft. Which makes sense, when you consider that the residual value of the airframe after the airline is done with it is a very, very small part of overall costs over the service life of said airframe. With that said, how could the 777 possibly have been hurt by the lack of a freighter conversion? Especially when you consider that it has been arguably the most successful widebody in history, rivaled only by the A330, which has only recently had a P2F conversion (not available when most of them were ordered), and with very few of them having actually been converted.

Many airlines do pay attention to the depreciation rates of airplanes. It is especially true for leasing companies. Having a robust secondary market helps with financing for those airlines without access to unlimited capital.

If we look at the big 777-200ER operators, they often fly airplanes all the way to retirement (United, American, British Airways, Air France, etc). Those aren’t the type of airlines who sell off widebodies with enough useable life (usually 10+ years) to be freighter feedstock. There were some 777-200ERs sold off, but it is questionable if it was enough planes to provide feedstock to make freighter conversion lines viable.

The 777-300ER operators don’t necessarily operate the airplanes the same way. I would expect many more 777-300ERs to be sold At between 12-20 years of age which makes them the right age for freighter conversions. Without a freighter conversion market, where would these planes go? If they would have been parked lessors would be losing money on their investments, which pushes up rates.

Airlines may pay attention to depreciation, but they are also limited by what’s available. Of all the planes that have competed with the 777 during its existence (not including the 747) only one has had a P2F program until the A330 came out only recently, and that was the MD-11. It didn’t help it much. I stand by my statement that the lack of it has not hurt the 777. And even now, due to the high cost and limited availability of 787s and A350s, used 777s (especially 77Ws) will not have a hard time finding new homes. The only fly in the ointment will be if EK releases a whole bunch of them in a short time period. But that might just make IAI’s conversion program viable.

ojjunior wrote:

Found some info about it online:

Damn this thing would be Beautiful!


https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=htt ... AdAAAAABAI


https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=htt ... AdAAAAABAO

What a beautiful bird.
Hope to see one flying.

SEPilot wrote:

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

SEPilot wrote:

It does not seem that airlines pay much attention to the possibility, or lack thereof, of freighter conversion when they purchase aircraft. Which makes sense, when you consider that the residual value of the airframe after the airline is done with it is a very, very small part of overall costs over the service life of said airframe. With that said, how could the 777 possibly have been hurt by the lack of a freighter conversion? Especially when you consider that it has been arguably the most successful widebody in history, rivaled only by the A330, which has only recently had a P2F conversion (not available when most of them were ordered), and with very few of them having actually been converted.

Many airlines do pay attention to the depreciation rates of airplanes. It is especially true for leasing companies. Having a robust secondary market helps with financing for those airlines without access to unlimited capital.

If we look at the big 777-200ER operators, they often fly airplanes all the way to retirement (United, American, British Airways, Air France, etc). Those aren’t the type of airlines who sell off widebodies with enough useable life (usually 10+ years) to be freighter feedstock. There were some 777-200ERs sold off, but it is questionable if it was enough planes to provide feedstock to make freighter conversion lines viable.

The 777-300ER operators don’t necessarily operate the airplanes the same way. I would expect many more 777-300ERs to be sold At between 12-20 years of age which makes them the right age for freighter conversions. Without a freighter conversion market, where would these planes go? If they would have been parked lessors would be losing money on their investments, which pushes up rates.

Airlines may pay attention to depreciation, but they are also limited by what’s available. Of all the planes that have competed with the 777 during its existence (not including the 747) only one has had a P2F program until the A330 came out only recently, and that was the MD-11. It didn’t help it much. I stand by my statement that the lack of it has not hurt the 777. And even now, due to the high cost and limited availability of 787s and A350s, used 777s (especially 77Ws) will not have a hard time finding new homes. The only fly in the ointment will be if EK releases a whole bunch of them in a short time period. But that might just make IAI’s conversion program viable.

Having this SF conversion will help.

FWIW P to F is the generic term.
SF = IAI Bedek engineered the conversion
BCF is a Boeing conversion freighter
P2F is an Airbus converted freighter


From: https://cargofacts.com/allposts/equipme ... s-part-iv/
"The seven major conversion houses are (alphabetically): Aeronautical Engineers, Inc, Bedek Aviation Group, Boeing, EFW, PEMCO World Air Services, Precision Aircraft Solutions, and Singapore Technologies Aerospace."

These shops are always trying to find their niche. Due to the size of the market, I could see one more future 777 conversion, with Boeing being the most likely.

Lightsaber

PS, the 787 must drop in resale value by $20 to $30 million before we can discuss a P to F. The A350 must drop about $50 million, so we are a long time away from discussing P to F on the latest airframes. I think there will eventually be 200 777-300ERSF. But this isn't a sprint, I expect it to take years until popular, just as with the 757 conversions (read above link, it took a while before enough 'stock' was available at the right price.

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

SEPilot wrote:

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

Many airlines do pay attention to the depreciation rates of airplanes. It is especially true for leasing companies. Having a robust secondary market helps with financing for those airlines without access to unlimited capital.

If we look at the big 777-200ER operators, they often fly airplanes all the way to retirement (United, American, British Airways, Air France, etc). Those aren’t the type of airlines who sell off widebodies with enough useable life (usually 10+ years) to be freighter feedstock. There were some 777-200ERs sold off, but it is questionable if it was enough planes to provide feedstock to make freighter conversion lines viable.

The 777-300ER operators don’t necessarily operate the airplanes the same way. I would expect many more 777-300ERs to be sold At between 12-20 years of age which makes them the right age for freighter conversions. Without a freighter conversion market, where would these planes go? If they would have been parked lessors would be losing money on their investments, which pushes up rates.

Airlines may pay attention to depreciation, but they are also limited by what’s available. Of all the planes that have competed with the 777 during its existence (not including the 747) only one has had a P2F program until the A330 came out only recently, and that was the MD-11. It didn’t help it much. I stand by my statement that the lack of it has not hurt the 777. And even now, due to the high cost and limited availability of 787s and A350s, used 777s (especially 77Ws) will not have a hard time finding new homes. The only fly in the ointment will be if EK releases a whole bunch of them in a short time period. But that might just make IAI’s conversion program viable.

Having this SF conversion will help.

FWIW P to F is the generic term.
SF = IAI Bedek engineered the conversion
BCF is a Boeing conversion freighter
P2F is an Airbus converted freighter


From: https://cargofacts.com/allposts/equipme ... s-part-iv/
"The seven major conversion houses are (alphabetically): Aeronautical Engineers, Inc, Bedek Aviation Group, Boeing, EFW, PEMCO World Air Services, Precision Aircraft Solutions, and Singapore Technologies Aerospace."

These shops are always trying to find their niche. Due to the size of the market, I could see one more future 777 conversion, with Boeing being the most likely.

Lightsaber

PS, the 787 must drop in resale value by $20 to $30 million before we can discuss a P to F. The A350 must drop about $50 million, so we are a long time away from discussing P to F on the latest airframes. I think there will eventually be 200 777-300ERSF. But this isn't a sprint, I expect it to take years until popular, just as with the 757 conversions (read above link, it took a while before enough 'stock' was available at the right price.

Lightsaber

If you google "Boeing P2F", you'll get a ton of hits. Maybe "P2F" is not an official generic term, but it seems to have been accepted as such (P2F: Passenger to (phonetically) Freighter, similar to B2B - Business to Business).

ojjunior wrote:

Found some info about it online:

Damn this thing would be Beautiful!


https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=htt ... AdAAAAABAI


https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=htt ... AdAAAAABAO

Side question why remove the windows, is it a structural thing or reduced long term maintenance?

Ozair wrote:

[
Side question why remove the windows, is it a structural thing or reduced long term maintenance?

Mx costs.

RJMAZ wrote:

The 777W would have a lot of volume. With dense cargo everything could go entirely under the floor. So the weak cabin floor won't be a big issue.

The conversions have a floating floor installed with rollers to spread out the point loads. There are weight limits on the pallet positions on the main deck but they have a few positions that have a stronger floor. I assume these positions are above the main wingbox. Another position could be in the tail just aft of the most rear LD3 position as the lower frame would be stronger without the space for the containers underneith.

A few airlines last week have removed their seats and are using the 777W for cargo. Most goes in the belly but there are I think 5 pallet positions on the main deck in these strong sections.

These weight limitations wouldn't be that hard to deal with from an operational perspective. Any parcel company that has lots of light parcels would be able to put these on the main deck. A proper conversion with metal floor beams isn't really needed.

So? Without a Main Cargo door? How are these airplanes being Loaded? and if they're putting freight in the main cabin? Then how are they securing the freight??
Something about this sounds jacked up. I have seen convertible pax to freighters before, 747's DC-10's ,767's and 757's. 737's, DC-9-10/30 series. and SUD Caravelle-10's Only Airborne Express to my Knowledge has ever converted a pax airplane to a freighter without a cargo door on the main Deck So? just taking the seats out of an airplane does NOT make it a freighter, So? Maybe you'd better post some proof of this conversion? Or leave it alone altogether. Because I can tell you. It ain't gonna Happen and it didn't happen! There is not Now Nor has their ever Been an STC that allowed that TO Happen (IN the USA at least) without a cargo conversion. In my younger days, I worked on Cargo conversions at Evergreen. they are Highly technical, It isn't a Slam Bam thank you Ma'am conversion even if the airplane already Has a cargo door.

trex8 wrote:

Ozair wrote:

[
Side question why remove the windows, is it a structural thing or reduced long term maintenance?

Mx costs.

Thanks, makes sense.

amdiesen wrote:

Smart move by GE, supplementing the life of the life of the GE90 by making the 77W the defacto conversion. Utility of a conversion is heightened for current operators of the GE90 passenger/freighter. Additionally it increases the viability of a 772LR conversion; (the design included freighter considerations., not on the 772.)

FedEX stands out as a potential customer. Given that GE is FedEX's dominate engine supplier and a significant GE customer, are the initial frames destine for Memphis? Once its real; Atlas, western global, ...?

"Boeing hurt the 777 by not having a BCF option?" A rational Boeing tactical decision would have been to mute a BCF option and/or inhibit an OEM conversion option until bridge production(freighter) was satisfied... and until a paper A350F appeared on the horizon.

Application of a process is an excellent way to discover improvements and achieve economic efficiencies; discussed as the challenge for the 777 conversion. Respecting, COVID changes factors in the equation.
How does this affect the B772F order book?

the GE powered 777's are popular, However? There are many good 777-200 series airplanes powered by PW-4000's that are highly viable and still would be good and reliable freighters. GE is popular today because they Paid Boeing to be the sole source engine. on their airplanes. But? If that's the case? Then the USAF must be in Deep Kimchee because all of their New 767 based tankers? are all PW Powered and there are still many shops around the world still working on the PW4000 series engines.

strfyr51 wrote:

amdiesen wrote:

Smart move by GE, supplementing the life of the life of the GE90 by making the 77W the defacto conversion. Utility of a conversion is heightened for current operators of the GE90 passenger/freighter. Additionally it increases the viability of a 772LR conversion; (the design included freighter considerations., not on the 772.)

FedEX stands out as a potential customer. Given that GE is FedEX's dominate engine supplier and a significant GE customer, are the initial frames destine for Memphis? Once its real; Atlas, western global, ...?

"Boeing hurt the 777 by not having a BCF option?" A rational Boeing tactical decision would have been to mute a BCF option and/or inhibit an OEM conversion option until bridge production(freighter) was satisfied... and until a paper A350F appeared on the horizon.

Application of a process is an excellent way to discover improvements and achieve economic efficiencies; discussed as the challenge for the 777 conversion. Respecting, COVID changes factors in the equation.
How does this affect the B772F order book?

the GE powered 777's are popular, However? There are many good 777-200 series airplanes powered by PW-4000's that are highly viable and still would be good and reliable freighters. GE is popular today because they Paid Boeing to be the sole source engine. on their airplanes. But? If that's the case? Then the USAF must be in Deep Kimchee because all of their New 767 based tankers? are all PW Powered and there are still many shops around the world still working on the PW4000 series engines.

I hope the UA 777-222ERs have life as freighters after UA. That’s why I hope there is a conversion program

strfyr51 wrote:

So? Without a Main Cargo door? How are these airplanes being Loaded? and if they're putting freight in the main cabin? Then how are they securing the freight??
Something about this sounds jacked up. I have seen convertible pax to freighters before, 747's DC-10's ,767's and 757's. 737's, DC-9-10/30 series. and SUD Caravelle-10's Only Airborne Express to my Knowledge has ever converted a pax airplane to a freighter without a cargo door on the main Deck So? just taking the seats out of an airplane does NOT make it a freighter, So? Maybe you'd better post some proof of this conversion? Or leave it alone altogether. Because I can tell you. It ain't gonna Happen and it didn't happen! There is not Now Nor has their ever Been an STC that allowed that TO Happen (IN the USA at least) without a cargo conversion. In my younger days, I worked on Cargo conversions at Evergreen. they are Highly technical, It isn't a Slam Bam thank you Ma'am conversion even if the airplane already Has a cargo door.

being discussed here
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1442899&start=100

https://paxex.aero/2020/04/air-canada-7 ... ved-cargo/
https://aircanada.mediaroom.com/2020-04 ... sary-Cargo
https://twitter.com/chinaavreview/statu ... 97?lang=en
https://www.flightglobal.com/air-transp ... 72.article

What is the difference between a regular freighter and a package freighter?

Slightly off topic but Air Canada is doing a temporary all cargo conversion on 3 of their 77W to meet increased package demand such as medical supplies.
https://simpleflying.com/air-canada-777 ... d-seating/

SXDFC wrote:

What is the difference between a regular freighter and a package freighter?

What you put in it
So eg. Fedex and UPS tend to fly light packages more than “general cargo” carriers and the airlines. They tend to use up all the volume in the plane before maxing out the payload.
Converted pax planes tend to work fine for package carriers but may not have enough payload for regular cargo carriers

trex8 wrote:

SXDFC wrote:

What is the difference between a regular freighter and a package freighter?

What you put in it
So eg. Fedex and UPS tend to fly light packages more than “general cargo” carriers and the airlines. They tend to use up all the volume in the plane before maxing out the payload.
Converted pax planes tend to work fine for package carriers but may not have enough payload for regular cargo carriers

"Payload" is relative to what you charge. You can be charged actual weight, or the volume metric weight, whichever is greater. An airline/freight forwarder is not going to be too disappointed if you show up with 100 x 10kg boxes, when those same boxes volume out to 4000 kg, because that's what they are going to charge you. Great for the airline, they get their higher revenue and their costs are less as they aren't actually carrying the extra 3000 kgs and the associated fuel burn costs.

Can the 777W P2F "end" the 744F, as the capacity is "quite close" (101.6 tons vs more than 124 tons), and the twin-77Ws are much more economical than the quad-744?

Antaras wrote:

Can the 777W P2F "end" the 744F, as the capacity is "quite close" (101.6 tons vs more than 124 tons), and the twin-77Ws are much more economical than the quad-744?

If it can't carry the same weights on the main deck, then no. These 77W conversion will be aimed at the likes of UPS/FEDEX/AMAZON, etc for small parcel deliveries around the U.S.A and through Asia from China where the volume is needed. They aren't going to aimed at the heavy freight market, which for now is going to be continued to be dominated by the 747 and factory built 777 freighters.

Antaras wrote:

Can the 777W P2F "end" the 744F, as the capacity is "quite close" (101.6 tons vs more than 124 tons), and the twin-77Ws are much more economical than the quad-744?

B744F/B748F's nose door is suitable for oversized air freight, while other Boeing/Airbus products cannot hold them. This is their unique market position.