wasn't there rumors recently the fedex and ups were parking planes? considering that and this coronavirus caused economic slowdown, this is probably the worst possible time to launch an freighter

VSMUT wrote:

JustSomeDood wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

You won't get a 777-300ER conversion for 80 mio. In the topic when it was launched, most estimates was that it would cost 100 to 120 mio just to convert. It only makes sense in the light that the 747 is going out of production, and it will be the only similar sized product available.

Where are you getting the $100m+ costs? FG is estimating $35m conversion cost for the IAI P2F and GECAS is probably getting it done way cheaper as a launch order. I am pretty sure they aren't touching the floor beams, which AFAIK are what made those earlier estimates so ludicrously expensive.

https://www.flightglobal.com/mro/gecas-and-iai-launch-777-300er-cargo-conversion/134817.article

If you aren't touching the floor beams, it won't hold a candle to an A350F.

For the many types of payloads that volume out (think Amazon) instead of hitting payload weight the existing floor beams evidently work fine. For denser cargo payloads a new-build B777F will be very competitive to an A350F as the significantly higher MTOW of the platform would allow similar/higher payloads at MZFW even with the fuel burn disadvantage.

GECAS themselves have clearly studied long and hard about the program and believe in its potential enough to plunk down big money as a launch customer.

JustSomeDood wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

JustSomeDood wrote:

Even in that case, will be hard to justify business case for a new A350F when there's a lot of incoming 77W feedstock which, at say $80M all-in ($50m 77W + $30m conversion) would be half the price, and assuming A350-900 length for freighter, offer significantly more volume as well. Fuel costs don't matter nearly as much when utilization is lower and average route length is ~3000nm rather than ~6000nm in PAX ops.

You won't get a 777-300ER conversion for 80 mio. In the topic when it was launched, most estimates was that it would cost 100 to 120 mio just to convert. It only makes sense in the light that the 747 is going out of production, and it will be the only similar sized product available.

Where are you getting the $100m+ costs? FG is estimating $35m conversion cost for the IAI P2F and GECAS is probably getting it done way cheaper as a launch order. I am pretty sure they aren't touching the floor beams for this program, which AFAIK are what made those earlier estimates so ludicrously expensive.

https://www.flightglobal.com/mro/gecas-and-iai-launch-777-300er-cargo-conversion/134817.article

There must be a reason why new built 77F aircraft have aluminum floor beams instead of CFRP. Without stronger floor beams, a converted 77W won't be able to carry its maximum payload (which is one of its unique selling points).

PepeTheFrog wrote:

JustSomeDood wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

You won't get a 777-300ER conversion for 80 mio. In the topic when it was launched, most estimates was that it would cost 100 to 120 mio just to convert. It only makes sense in the light that the 747 is going out of production, and it will be the only similar sized product available.

Where are you getting the $100m+ costs? FG is estimating $35m conversion cost for the IAI P2F and GECAS is probably getting it done way cheaper as a launch order. I am pretty sure they aren't touching the floor beams for this program, which AFAIK are what made those earlier estimates so ludicrously expensive.

https://www.flightglobal.com/mro/gecas-and-iai-launch-777-300er-cargo-conversion/134817.article

There must be a reason why new built 77F aircraft have aluminum floor beams instead of CFRP. Without stronger floor beams, a converted 77W won't be able to carry its maximum payload (which is one of its unique selling points).

The 77W conversion is targeted towards package carriers, not general freight. Max payload will suffer without changing the beams but the primary selling point of the conversion will be cheap high volume, not maximum payload.

The 77F was/is targeted to both package and general freight as a smaller alternative to 747s. The 77W conversion is for those who like the volume of a 747, but don’t need its heavy payload or out-sized cargo capability

VSMUT wrote:

JustSomeDood wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

You won't get a 777-300ER conversion for 80 mio. In the topic when it was launched, most estimates was that it would cost 100 to 120 mio just to convert. It only makes sense in the light that the 747 is going out of production, and it will be the only similar sized product available.

Where are you getting the $100m+ costs? FG is estimating $35m conversion cost for the IAI P2F and GECAS is probably getting it done way cheaper as a launch order. I am pretty sure they aren't touching the floor beams, which AFAIK are what made those earlier estimates so ludicrously expensive.

https://www.flightglobal.com/mro/gecas-and-iai-launch-777-300er-cargo-conversion/134817.article

If you aren't touching the floor beams, it won't hold a candle to an A350F.

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

GECAS and IAI have not yet disclosed the list price, but it is understood to be in the region of $35m per aircraft.

And A350F won't be able to hold a candle to that price.

As for capability:

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.

That will put a lot of market pressure on the decision to launch A350F since the low density market won't pay what A350F wants and the high density market already has an incumbent 772F now and a presumed 778F in a few years. There's not much of a "middle of the market" for A350F to aim at.

PepeTheFrog wrote:

According to https://twitter.com/TLSWatch/status/1233151914587697153, a FedEx private jet with registration N1FE was in Toulouse 2 days ago.

See https://flic.kr/p/2ixvyCJ

This is the most telling and interesting post of this whole thread. Thank you for sharing!

With the coming recession, nobody will want new freighters for a decade.

seahawk wrote:

With the coming recession, nobody will want new freighters for a decade.

I am not sure why you believe there is going to be a recession. However some recent cargo facts are, Lufthansa potentially ending MD11 cargo and Fedex, and Atlas cutting aircraft out of their fleets.

So far Sun Country d/b/a Amazon is still a go and I really have not heard of reduced d/b/a Amazon flying yet. I do believe the Stock Market will not rise until there is some certainty forecast in future US 2020 elections.

Low stock prices do not necessarily mean recession, just means money is being taken out of the market to prepare for uncertainty in the future.

Polot wrote:

StTim wrote:

Please help me out here as I am a little confused. Most people on here seem to agree that the A350 is a great replacement for the 777 taking similar, or higher payload further for much less fuel.

Why is the same not applicable to an A350F?

I believe most of those comparisons are with the 77E, or between the A35K and 77W. The 77L/77F can carry a lot more weight (the 77L/77F has a MTOW ~67t higher than the A359. An empty 777 is heavier, but not 67t heavier). Now for passenger operations it matters less since more of that weight is taken up by fuel and few airlines actually need the 77L’s available revenue payload weight (hence the tepid orders for the 77L), but the extra weight is useful for freighters carrying denser cargo.

You're comparing the 777F with a notional 280 metric tonne MTOW A350-900F freighter.

Why don't you compare the 777F with a notional 319 (metric) tonne MTOW A350-900F freighter that would use the A350-1000's MLG (6-wheel bogies) and Trent XWB-97 engines?

NB: A 319 tonne MTOW A350-900F would not need the A350-1000's wing and its trailing-edge extension (i.e. increasing its area by 4%) and would, therefore, have the same wing as the 280 tonne MTOW A350-900.

As for the volume of the fuselage with respect to main deck pallets, please do note that the A350 was designed to hold 777-type pallets on the main deck. Although the A350 has a slighly smaller cross section than the 777, it's more efficient -- i.e. less fuselage wetted area per container.

Aircraft_______Fuselage Width*_________Fuselage Height*

A350_________234.59 inches ___________239.77 inches
777____________244 inches______________244 inches
787____________226.5 inches____________234.5 inches
A330F__________222 inches______________222 inches
MD-11F_________237inches______________237 inches

BTW, here are three links that compare the main deck container contours for the 777, 787 and A330.

777 Cross Section
http://theaviationspecialist.com/777F_CSECTION.jpg

787 Cross Section
http://theaviationspecialist.com/787f_csection.jpg

A300/A330 Cross Section
http://theaviationspecialist.com/a3006f_csection.jpg

Polot said: The 77L/77F can carry a lot more weight (the 77L/77F has a MTOW ~67t higher than the A359. An empty 777 is heavier, but not 67t heavier)

The 777F would have a 29 tonne higher MTOW than a 319 tonne A350-900F. Remove the higher OEW and higher required fuel load from the 777F and you'd see that a 319 tonne MTOW A350-900F would have about the same maximum payload range capability (100 - 104 tonnes at 4690 nm) as the 777F.

So, a 319 tonne MTOW A350-900F should be able to carry equally as dense cargo as that of the 777F -- another myth busted!

reidar76 wrote:

Airbus have done a lot of research and innovation related to single pilot operation, combined with a significantly more capable AI autopilot. Recently they also performed fully autonomous take off and landings using an A350 test frame.

Could this push for an A350 freighter be related to these research and innovation activities? I guess that it will be easier to get certification for a single pilot freighter than for a passenger aircraft. After a some years with single pilot freighters the technology might be ready for a wider application.

Significantly reduced crew costs is a competitive advantage against any 777 freighter.

A single pilot, 319 tonne MTOW A350-900F -- powered by Trent XWB-97 engines -- would render Boeing's wide-body freighter portfolio uncompetitive overnight.

The 777F can carry 10 foot high pallets, albeit sculptured, unlike the 747. The MD11 and A300/330 only 8 ft high , can the A350 carry taller than 8 foot?

trex8 wrote:

The 777F can carry 10 foot high pallets, albeit sculptured, unlike the 747. The MD11 and A300/330 only 8 ft high , can the A350 carry taller than 8 foot?

As I indicated in my comments above, a notional A350-900F can carry 10-foot high pallets, while a notional 787F should be able to carry 9-foot high pallets.

The "problem" with the MD-11F is its 8.5-foot high main cargo door .

Baldr wrote:

Polot wrote:

StTim wrote:

Please help me out here as I am a little confused. Most people on here seem to agree that the A350 is a great replacement for the 777 taking similar, or higher payload further for much less fuel.

Why is the same not applicable to an A350F?

I believe most of those comparisons are with the 77E, or between the A35K and 77W. The 77L/77F can carry a lot more weight (the 77L/77F has a MTOW ~67t higher than the A359. An empty 777 is heavier, but not 67t heavier). Now for passenger operations it matters less since more of that weight is taken up by fuel and few airlines actually need the 77L’s available revenue payload weight (hence the tepid orders for the 77L), but the extra weight is useful for freighters carrying denser cargo.

You're comparing the 777F with a notional 280 metric tonne MTOW A350-900F freighter.

Why don't you compare the 777F with a notional 319 (metric) tonne MTOW A350-900F freighter that would use the A350-1000's MLG (6-wheel bogies) and Trent XWB-97 engines?

NB: A 319 tonne MTOW A350-900F would not need the A350-1000's wing and its trailing-edge extension (i.e. increasing its area by 4%) and would, therefore, have the same wing as the 280 tonne MTOW A350-900.

As for the volume of the fuselage with respect to main deck pallets, please do note that the A350 was designed to hold 777-type pallets on the main deck. Although the A350 has a slighly smaller cross section than the 777, it's more efficient -- i.e. less fuselage wetted area per container.

Aircraft_______Fuselage Width*_________Fuselage Height*

A350_________234.59 inches ___________239.77 inches
777____________244 inches______________244 inches
787____________226.5 inches____________234.5 inches
A330F__________222 inches______________222 inches
MD-11F_________237inches______________237 inches

BTW, here are three links that compare the main deck container contours for the 777, 787 and A330.

777 Cross Section
http://theaviationspecialist.com/777F_CSECTION.jpg

787 Cross Section
http://theaviationspecialist.com/787f_csection.jpg

A300/A330 Cross Section
http://theaviationspecialist.com/a3006f_csection.jpg

Polot said: The 77L/77F can carry a lot more weight (the 77L/77F has a MTOW ~67t higher than the A359. An empty 777 is heavier, but not 67t heavier)

The 777F would have a 29 tonne higher MTOW than a 319 tonne A350-900F. Remove the higher OEW and higher required fuel load from the 777F and you'd see that a 319 tonne MTOW A350-900F would have about the same maximum payload range capability (100 - 104 tonnes at 4690 nm) as the 777F.

So, a 319 tonne MTOW A350-900F should be able to carry equally as dense cargo as that of the 777F -- another myth busted!

And now your increasingly Frankenstein A350F is getting heavier and more expensive to develop, build, and sell. Capability must be balanced with costs.

Baldr wrote:

reidar76 wrote:

Airbus have done a lot of research and innovation related to single pilot operation, combined with a significantly more capable AI autopilot. Recently they also performed fully autonomous take off and landings using an A350 test frame.

Could this push for an A350 freighter be related to these research and innovation activities? I guess that it will be easier to get certification for a single pilot freighter than for a passenger aircraft. After a some years with single pilot freighters the technology might be ready for a wider application.

Significantly reduced crew costs is a competitive advantage against any 777 freighter.

A single pilot, 319 tonne MTOW A350-900F -- powered by Trent XWB-97 engines -- would render Boeing's wide-body freighter portfolio uncompetitive overnight.

We are a long way from a single pilot A350. That is fanboy fantasy thinking. Automated take off and landing tests don’t mean that the A350 is near that point.

Polot said: And now your increasingly Frankenstein A350F is getting heavier and more expensive to develop, build, and sell. Capability must be balanced with costs.

A -900F freighter using the engines and structure -- 6-wheel bogie concept, 4.7m long landing gear bay vs. 4.1m long landing gear bay on the A359 -- was planned from the very beginning of the A350 XWB programme. At the time, the MTOW of the A350-1000 was 295 metric tonnes -- yet, a 295 metric tonne MTOW A359F was projected to carry 90 metric tonnes in excess of 5000 nm.

https://www.fzt.haw-hamburg.de/pers/Scholz/dglr/hh/text_2007_09_20_A350XWB.pdf

-

Airbus will include the planned development of ultra-long-range and cargo variants of the A350-900 family right from the programme launch later this year to enable it to strengthen its product line against the successful 777-200LR/300ER/Freighter.

"The ultra-long-range -900R and -900F model will use the engines and structure of the A350-1000, and will enter service around 2015," says Dr Kiran Rao, Airbus executive vice-president marketing and contracts customer affairs.

Both models will use the 95,000lb-thrust (420kN) engines and 290t take-off weight of the A350-1000. Rao says that the A350-900F will be able to carry its "full 90t payload over distances in excess of 5,000nm [9,250km]", and although its payload is slightly lower than the 777 Freighter it will offer "25-30% lower costs".

The -900R will be able to carry a load of around 310 passengers "1,000nm further than the -900 - 9,500nm - and again offer significant cost savings over the 777-200LR", says Rao.

https://www.flightglobal.com/airbus-goes-for-extra-width-a350-xwb-special-report/68662.article

-

Polot said:We are a long way from a single pilot A350. That is fanboy fantasy thinking. Automated take off and landing tests don’t mean that the A350 is near that point

Apparently, airlines would like to see the next Boeing aircraft to be designed for only one pilot in the cockpit.

Of course, Airbus is not capable of doing that -- not even for a freighter -- so the world's airlines are waiting for the superior folks in Seattle to come up with something.

https://airlinerwatch.com/airlines-want-the-next-boeing-jet-with-one-pilot-in-the-cockpit/

Baldr wrote:

Polot said: And now your increasingly Frankenstein A350F is getting heavier and more expensive to develop, build, and sell. Capability must be balanced with costs.

A -900F freighter using the engines and structure -- 6-wheel bogie concept, 4.7m long landing gear bay vs. 4.1m long landing gear bay on the A359 -- was planned from the very beginning of the A350 XWB programme. At the time, the MTOW of the A350-1000 was 295 metric tonnes -- yet, a 295 metric tonne MTOW A359F was projected to carry 90 metric tonnes in excess of 5000 nm.

https://www.fzt.haw-hamburg.de/pers/Scholz/dglr/hh/text_2007_09_20_A350XWB.pdf

-

Airbus will include the planned development of ultra-long-range and cargo variants of the A350-900 family right from the programme launch later this year to enable it to strengthen its product line against the successful 777-200LR/300ER/Freighter.

"The ultra-long-range -900R and -900F model will use the engines and structure of the A350-1000, and will enter service around 2015," says Dr Kiran Rao, Airbus executive vice-president marketing and contracts customer affairs.

Both models will use the 95,000lb-thrust (420kN) engines and 290t take-off weight of the A350-1000. Rao says that the A350-900F will be able to carry its "full 90t payload over distances in excess of 5,000nm [9,250km]", and although its payload is slightly lower than the 777 Freighter it will offer "25-30% lower costs".

The -900R will be able to carry a load of around 310 passengers "1,000nm further than the -900 - 9,500nm - and again offer significant cost savings over the 777-200LR", says Rao.

https://www.flightglobal.com/airbus-goes-for-extra-width-a350-xwb-special-report/68662.article

I never said it wasn’t possible. I said capability must be balanced with costs. Programs are launched to make money, not for ultimate bragging rights. The question becomes how much more money and more customers would Airbus get for a more expensive more capable A350F versus how much money and and how more customers would they get by just using the current A350 as the F platform. Plans change, what Airbus talked about ~15 years ago is irrelevant.

Baldr wrote:

Apparently, airlines would like to see the next Boeing aircraft to be designed for only one pilot in the cockpit.

Of course, Airbus is not capable of doing that -- not even for a freighter -- so the world's airlines are waiting for the superior folks in Seattle to come up with something.

https://airlinerwatch.com/airlines-want ... e-cockpit/

Oh wow, airlines want Boeing to develop an all new design with single pilot operations in mind. Obviously that means I think Boeing can do it in <5 years while Airbus can’t do it all. And we all know airlines never ask for the impossible. Give me a break

The A350 was not designed with single pilot operations from the start. It is a significant change to get to that level and it is not going to happen in time for a A350F if Airbus is already pitching it to airlines. Things like automated takeoffs and landings will be augmentation systems added for use in ideal conditions to start, not to immediately replace a pilot.

A 6-wheel A359F is a slightly smaller 777F competitor, or an MD-11 replacement with some additional range.

A 4-wheel A359F could serve a role either as a long-range package carrier or as a short-range heavy-lift freighter. It could potentially save on operating costs vs. the 777F in a number of FedEx missions, although I have a hard time believing that Airbus will be able to match Boeing on sales price at this point. It would fly most FedEx MD-11 missions fine, but at awfully high capital cost.

The least surprising thing here is FedEx meeting with Airbus. Every airline should stay connected with all major OEMs, if for no other reason than to keep other OEMs honest.

marcelh wrote:

Polot wrote:

marcelh wrote:

It looks Airbus is aiming at the lighter density cargo.

Yes. I was explaining why they are aiming for a different density cargo than the 777.

It can be interesting to compare the A350F to the 77L when both are carrying more denser cargo (of which the 77L is optimized for).

With the 77L having a higher payload it can fly further when both aircraft volume out. This will still becthe case with a p2f 777-300ER

..and this will be the issue for a A350F. In comparison to the opposition it will be limited in the markets it can serve. If we consider containers, crewing, spares, CAPEX (these would be expensive aircraft) a freighter airline could have to double up on these costs to keep the A350 freighters flying, especially on the aircrafts fringe. The 777 series of aircraft would simply keep doing what’s its doing with existing containers, crews, spares, etc.

As such, tHe business case for an A350F would probably be a hard sell, even with superior operating economics ( which I doubt is true).

travelhound wrote:

marcelh wrote:

Polot wrote:

Yes. I was explaining why they are aiming for a different density cargo than the 777.

It can be interesting to compare the A350F to the 77L when both are carrying more denser cargo (of which the 77L is optimized for).

With the 77L having a higher payload it can fly further when both aircraft volume out. This will still becthe case with a p2f 777-300ER

..and this will be the issue for a A350F. In comparison to the opposition it will be limited in the markets it can serve. If we consider containers, crewing, spares, CAPEX (these would be expensive aircraft) a freighter airline could have to double up on these costs to keep the A350 freighters flying, especially on the aircrafts fringe. The 777 series of aircraft would simply keep doing what’s its doing with existing containers, crews, spares, etc.

As such, tHe business case for an A350F would probably be a hard sell, even with superior operating economics ( which I doubt is true).

I don't think that the cargo density is a relevant metric to evaluate the proposed A351F. At low densities, it offers the nearly the same volume as the 777ERSF. At high densities, it offers nearly the same payload (95t vs 103t) as the 777F. The main deck floor comprised between the 2 cargo doors would just need to be optimized for high densities. In both cases, the A351F would burn much less fuel than its competitors. It's true that the A351F would be a bit pricey but it's part of a family that has already sold more than 900 copies, so there are economies of scale to consider. Last but not least, the A351F would definitely have the upper hand in terms of noise footprint.

Revelation wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

JustSomeDood wrote:

Where are you getting the $100m+ costs? FG is estimating $35m conversion cost for the IAI P2F and GECAS is probably getting it done way cheaper as a launch order. I am pretty sure they aren't touching the floor beams, which AFAIK are what made those earlier estimates so ludicrously expensive.

https://www.flightglobal.com/mro/gecas-and-iai-launch-777-300er-cargo-conversion/134817.article

If you aren't touching the floor beams, it won't hold a candle to an A350F.

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

GECAS and IAI have not yet disclosed the list price, but it is understood to be in the region of $35m per aircraft.

Yet https://www.aircargonews.net/airlines/f ... er-closer/ puts the conversion cost at $60 million per aircraft.

PepeTheFrog wrote:

Revelation wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

If you aren't touching the floor beams, it won't hold a candle to an A350F.

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

GECAS and IAI have not yet disclosed the list price, but it is understood to be in the region of $35m per aircraft.

Yet https://www.aircargonews.net/airlines/f ... er-closer/ puts the conversion cost at $60 million per aircraft.

Note that in price the IAI marketing guy was talking about the total cost. That is the cost of the frame in addition to just the conversion.

Polot wrote:

PepeTheFrog wrote:

Revelation wrote:

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

Yet https://www.aircargonews.net/airlines/f ... er-closer/ puts the conversion cost at $60 million per aircraft.

Note that in price the IAI marketing guy was talking about the total cost. That is the cost of the frame in addition to just the conversion.

Seems unlikely. Looking at viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1440991&p=22044039 the cheapest second hand 77W sells for $55 million. So that $60 million figure cannot be the price for frame + conversion.

PepeTheFrog wrote:

Polot wrote:

PepeTheFrog wrote:

Yet https://www.aircargonews.net/airlines/f ... er-closer/ puts the conversion cost at $60 million per aircraft.

Note that in price the IAI marketing guy was talking about the total cost. That is the cost of the frame in addition to just the conversion.

Seems unlikely. Looking at viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1440991&p=22044039 the cheapest second hand 77W sells for $55 million. So that $60 million figure cannot be the price for frame + conversion.

I never said it was realistic (and the other guy on the panel seemed skeptical too) but that was what the IAI guy was talking about.

For companies that own the frame, like GECAS (the launch customer), obviously the frame acquisition costs don’t matter though. Those were pay for with the first passenger lease out. It will be interesting. Leasing companies have traditionally stayed out of the freighter world but as they are starting to amass a large amount of wide bodies coming off lease in a few years that has been changing to squeeze as much money out of their investments as possible. GECAS for example is supplying Amazon with 738P2Fs.

Emphasis added

VSMUT wrote:

...

Every indication is that the 777-300ER P2F will be insanely expensive to convert, and really more of an alternative to the 747-8F for package operators that need to volume, once the latter goes out of production. It is really in a different category from the 777-200F and hypothetical A350-900F.

And yet, GECAS and IAI launched the conversion already. See the link below.

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

So who could be possible customers??

LH to replace MD11F
CI to replace 744F, only have 6 777F on order to replace 18 744F in service and 2 parked
5X to replace some MD11
SQ to replace 744Fs but are they even going to stay in the freighter market?
CX have taken a lot of new 748Fs, don't see them in market for a while

any others?

IPolot said: never said it wasn’t possible. I said capability must be balanced with costs. Programs are launched to make money, not for ultimate bragging rights. The question becomes how much more money and more customers would Airbus get for a more expensive more capable A350F versus how much money and and how more customers would they get by just using the current A350 as the F platform. Plans change, what Airbus talked about ~15 years ago is irrelevant.

The problems here is that some people always seem to keep raising the bar on Airbus -- i.e. Airbus can't do this or that because it's too expensive; an A350F can't possibly carry the same payload at general cargo market densities (more than 10 pounds per cubic foot) as the 777F (etc.) -- while the same individuals seemingly are having no issues with any costly Boeing programme and taking for granted that Boeing will launch a notional 777-8F (etc.). So, it's easy to see where the bias comes from.

The fact of the matter is that a 319 tonne MTOW A359F is not going to be that expensive -- no matter what you're proclaiming. Also, Airbus could develop concurrently both an A350-1000F for package operations and an A359F for general cargo operations. With an estimated combined development cost of between $1-1.5 billion, ROI for the combined programme should be no more than 100 units.

Polot said: Oh wow, airlines want Boeing to develop an all new design with single pilot operations in mind. Obviously that means I think Boeing can do it in <5 years while Airbus can’t do it all. And we all know airlines never ask for the impossible. Give me a break

Yes, for you the bar is always higher for Airbus than for Boeing. I'm glad we got that one sorted out.

Polot said: The A350 was not designed with single pilot operations from the start. It is a significant change to get to that level and it is not going to happen in time for a A350F if Airbus is already pitching it to airlines. Things like automated takeoffs and landings will be augmentation systems added for use in ideal conditions to start, not to immediately replace a pilot.

Whatever.

The Airbus autonomous-airliner roadmap could see the technology pioneered with single-pilot operations of cargo aircraft, ahead of its introduction on passenger airliners.

Speaking at the ISTAT EMEA conference in Berlin on 25 September, Daniela Lohwasser, head of research and technology at Airbus, outlined the manufacturer’s thinking around the introduction of autonomous airliners, and confirmed it was working on technology to make single-pilot operations a reality.

“We can already see that there is a shortage of pilots… and that will not get better in the coming years,” says Lohwasser.

The move to “green flying will make aircraft more expensive to produce, and to operate because fuel costs would be higher”, she adds. “So we have to see how we can get operating costs down, and single-pilot operation could be such a way.”

Lohwasser says that the eventual target is for a fully-autonomous aircraft that does not require pilots. “Even in the single-pilot operating case, you have to create dual safety. Our ambition is that single-pilot operation must be safer than current aircraft.”

Airbus is investigating single-pilot operation of freighter aircraft as “a stepping stone” to this arrangement on passenger aircraft, says Lohwasser. “It will not be a one-step approach [to single-pilot passenger operations].”

https://www.flightglobal.com/systems-and-interiors/airbus-single-pilot-freighters-a-step-to-airliner-operations/134505.article

-

https://www.cleansky.eu/european-aviation-in-the-driving-seat-clean-skys-disruptive-cockpit-for-large-passenger-aircraft

tomcat wrote:

travelhound wrote:

marcelh wrote:

It can be interesting to compare the A350F to the 77L when both are carrying more denser cargo (of which the 77L is optimized for).

With the 77L having a higher payload it can fly further when both aircraft volume out. This will still becthe case with a p2f 777-300ER

..and this will be the issue for a A350F. In comparison to the opposition it will be limited in the markets it can serve. If we consider containers, crewing, spares, CAPEX (these would be expensive aircraft) a freighter airline could have to double up on these costs to keep the A350 freighters flying, especially on the aircrafts fringe. The 777 series of aircraft would simply keep doing what’s its doing with existing containers, crews, spares, etc.

As such, tHe business case for an A350F would probably be a hard sell, even with superior operating economics ( which I doubt is true).

I don't think that the cargo density is a relevant metric to evaluate the proposed A351F. At low densities, it offers the nearly the same volume as the 777ERSF. At high densities, it offers nearly the same payload (95t vs 103t) as the 777F. The main deck floor comprised between the 2 cargo doors would just need to be optimized for high densities. In both cases, the A351F would burn much less fuel than its competitors. It's true that the A351F would be a bit pricey but it's part of a family that has already sold more than 900 copies, so there are economies of scale to consider. Last but not least, the A351F would definitely have the upper hand in terms of noise footprint.

All well and good, but a -300ER P2F would most likely cost half as much as a new A351F given the cheap feedstock coming for the former. As you mentioned, the Boeing is projected to carry slightly more payload at a similar volume. The nature of freighter operations (lower utilization + shorter routes) means capital cost matters a lot more compared to pax ops, and therefore a tougher sell to justify buying new on fuel efficiency savings alone.

musman9853 wrote:

wasn't there rumors recently the fedex and ups were parking planes? considering that and this coronavirus caused economic slowdown, this is probably the worst possible time to launch an freighter

FX is parking its remaining DC-10s and some MD-11s, while 5X is generally parking MD-11s. LH (GEC) is also getting rid of its MD-11s.

That said, an A359-based freighter, using the A35K landing gear and ULR fuel system at 280t, possibly higher because of the 6 wheel bogeys, is likely entering service well after COVID-19 has passed, and I could see the A330 freighter being discontinued. The B77W Big Twin freighter is likely the replacement for the 747 freighter (it remains to be seen if a swing tail is possible). The A359 freighter would give the legacy B77L-based freighter a run for its money.

5X is picking up MD-11s from LH and not parking any as of now.

StTim wrote:

Please help me out here as I am a little confused. Most people on here seem to agree that the A350 is a great replacement for the 777 taking similar, or higher payload further for much less fuel.

Why is the same not applicable to an A350F?

Most freighters change range for additional payload. Having to carry less fuel That really boost the cargo. But the A350 burns less fuel which means sacrificing 1 hour of flight range delivers less additional payload. With otherworld’s the a350 has 70 tons les max takeoff weight so you can not fit the same payload weight wise.

Erebus wrote:

CX Flyboy wrote:

Erebus wrote:

In the past, CX expressed a lot of interest in an A359 based freighter and prodded Airbus to go ahead with its development. But, given the current situation at CX, I don't think they are in a position to make any commitments for new aircraft at this time.

That’s news to me! Not heard so much as a rumour about that even from friends in high places who often give good rumour fodder. Doesn’t mean what you say isn’t true, just that I hadn’t heard about it yet.

Several years ago.

- Cathay has expressed interest in an A350 freighter while also having 777Fs on order (although these are speculated to be transferred to part-owner Air China). - CAPA

- A350F all-cargo version will have to continue in the “development phase” and wait till 2020 although Cathay Pacific shows interest - A350 blog

“There is a market niche for such an aircraft. In the future there will be more need for twin-engine freighters,” Rhodes said, adding that it would make sense for Cathay to take on an A350F, as it is in line for a sizeable number of A350s for its passenger fleet. - Nick Rhodes, carrier’s director and general manager of cargo.

Cannot find it at the moment but IIRC, there was also another article out at the time with John Slosar encouraging Airbus to go ahead with the freighter development, although Airbus put the brakes on it to focus on getting the passenger version production running as a priority.

Thanks. Pretty old news then and sounded like it would have been very hypothetical back then. Not heard anything in recent times about further buying freighters although it would not surprise me to have a fleet of smaller freighters one day.

JustSomeDood wrote:

tomcat wrote:

travelhound wrote:

With the 77L having a higher payload it can fly further when both aircraft volume out. This will still becthe case with a p2f 777-300ER

..and this will be the issue for a A350F. In comparison to the opposition it will be limited in the markets it can serve. If we consider containers, crewing, spares, CAPEX (these would be expensive aircraft) a freighter airline could have to double up on these costs to keep the A350 freighters flying, especially on the aircrafts fringe. The 777 series of aircraft would simply keep doing what’s its doing with existing containers, crews, spares, etc.

As such, tHe business case for an A350F would probably be a hard sell, even with superior operating economics ( which I doubt is true).

I don't think that the cargo density is a relevant metric to evaluate the proposed A351F. At low densities, it offers the nearly the same volume as the 777ERSF. At high densities, it offers nearly the same payload (95t vs 103t) as the 777F. The main deck floor comprised between the 2 cargo doors would just need to be optimized for high densities. In both cases, the A351F would burn much less fuel than its competitors. It's true that the A351F would be a bit pricey but it's part of a family that has already sold more than 900 copies, so there are economies of scale to consider. Last but not least, the A351F would definitely have the upper hand in terms of noise footprint.

All well and good, but a -300ER P2F would most likely cost half as much as a new A351F given the cheap feedstock coming for the former. As you mentioned, the Boeing is projected to carry slightly more payload at a similar volume. The nature of freighter operations (lower utilization + shorter routes) means capital cost matters a lot more compared to pax ops, and therefore a tougher sell to justify buying new on fuel efficiency savings alone.

I can agree with what you're saying but I would add some nuances to it:
- there are cargo fleets which are having high utilization rate. Look at the Cargolux annual report for example. Last time I checked there were reporting daily average utilization north of 16 hours. SQ, CX, ET and the likes must be operating in a similar fashion. Low utilization rates are only typical of certain type of operations, mainly the transcontinental parcel operations.
- when the 777F was launched, it was not specially cheap but it has found customers. I understand that the main reason for its success is that it offered the range of a (cheap) 747F at much lower operating costs.
- a used aircraft will only be good for far less operating cycles than a new aircraft (unless a cargo conversion is so extensive in terms of structure overhaul that the converted aircraft will have gained a new lease of life. I don't know about that). How does it affect the net present value of both proposals in a environment of very low financing costs?

JustSomeDood wrote:

tomcat wrote:

travelhound wrote:

With the 77L having a higher payload it can fly further when both aircraft volume out. This will still becthe case with a p2f 777-300ER

..and this will be the issue for a A350F. In comparison to the opposition it will be limited in the markets it can serve. If we consider containers, crewing, spares, CAPEX (these would be expensive aircraft) a freighter airline could have to double up on these costs to keep the A350 freighters flying, especially on the aircrafts fringe. The 777 series of aircraft would simply keep doing what’s its doing with existing containers, crews, spares, etc.

As such, tHe business case for an A350F would probably be a hard sell, even with superior operating economics ( which I doubt is true).

I don't think that the cargo density is a relevant metric to evaluate the proposed A351F. At low densities, it offers the nearly the same volume as the 777ERSF. At high densities, it offers nearly the same payload (95t vs 103t) as the 777F. The main deck floor comprised between the 2 cargo doors would just need to be optimized for high densities. In both cases, the A351F would burn much less fuel than its competitors. It's true that the A351F would be a bit pricey but it's part of a family that has already sold more than 900 copies, so there are economies of scale to consider. Last but not least, the A351F would definitely have the upper hand in terms of noise footprint.

All well and good, but a -300ER P2F would most likely cost half as much as a new A351F given the cheap feedstock coming for the former. As you mentioned, the Boeing is projected to carry slightly more payload at a similar volume. The nature of freighter operations (lower utilization + shorter routes) means capital cost matters a lot more compared to pax ops, and therefore a tougher sell to justify buying new on fuel efficiency savings alone.

The value proposition for the 777-300ERP2F revolves around total operating costs rather than cost of feed stock.

For example a 15 year old P2F conversion could have an economic life of 15 years. As such it’s value would revolve around its economic life and maintenance, rather than cost of feedstock. With GE being the sole source of engines, the business equation for GECAS would probably revolve around maximising the value of their 777 aircraft whilst at the same time maximising the engine spares and maintenance opportunity for GE.

For GE supplying Engine spares for 15-30 year old engines would probably be a lot more lucrative than supplying spares for 0-15 year old aircraft.

As such, the business case could be lucrative enough that GECAS could be willing to Initially subsidise the conversion to ensure the 777 business case Into the future remains viable.

travelhound wrote:

The value proposition for the 777-300ERP2F revolves around total operating costs rather than cost of feed stock.

For example a 15 year old P2F conversion could have an economic life of 15 years. As such it’s value would revolve around its economic life and maintenance, rather than cost of feedstock. With GE being the sole source of engines, the business equation for GECAS would probably revolve around maximising the value of their 777 aircraft whilst at the same time maximising the engine spares and maintenance opportunity for GE.

For GE supplying Engine spares for 15-30 year old engines would probably be a lot more lucrative than supplying spares for 0-15 year old aircraft.

As such, the business case could be lucrative enough that GECAS could be willing to Initially subsidise the conversion to ensure the 777 business case Into the future remains viable.

All very good points.

I think 77W will have a good run in terms of support over the next 15 years. A lot of them are heading towards retirement which will keep second hands parts available whilst there is a big enough fleet to keep consumables available over that time frame since some airlines known for keeping their aircraft for a very long time are still buying new 77Ws over the last year or two.

We see GECAS put the money on the table to get the 777 P2F going, who will be willing to do so to get the proposed A350 Franken-freighter through design, test and production? Maybe Airbus itself will, but we can see A330F didn't provide a great amount of return on investment and I don't think they can get much market interest till Coronavirus passes.

travelhound wrote:

JustSomeDood wrote:

tomcat wrote:

I don't think that the cargo density is a relevant metric to evaluate the proposed A351F. At low densities, it offers the nearly the same volume as the 777ERSF. At high densities, it offers nearly the same payload (95t vs 103t) as the 777F. The main deck floor comprised between the 2 cargo doors would just need to be optimized for high densities. In both cases, the A351F would burn much less fuel than its competitors. It's true that the A351F would be a bit pricey but it's part of a family that has already sold more than 900 copies, so there are economies of scale to consider. Last but not least, the A351F would definitely have the upper hand in terms of noise footprint.

All well and good, but a -300ER P2F would most likely cost half as much as a new A351F given the cheap feedstock coming for the former. As you mentioned, the Boeing is projected to carry slightly more payload at a similar volume. The nature of freighter operations (lower utilization + shorter routes) means capital cost matters a lot more compared to pax ops, and therefore a tougher sell to justify buying new on fuel efficiency savings alone.

The value proposition for the 777-300ERP2F revolves around total operating costs rather than cost of feed stock.

For example a 15 year old P2F conversion could have an economic life of 15 years. As such it’s value would revolve around its economic life and maintenance, rather than cost of feedstock. With GE being the sole source of engines, the business equation for GECAS would probably revolve around maximising the value of their 777 aircraft whilst at the same time maximising the engine spares and maintenance opportunity for GE.

For GE supplying Engine spares for 15-30 year old engines would probably be a lot more lucrative than supplying spares for 0-15 year old aircraft.

As such, the business case could be lucrative enough that GECAS could be willing to Initially subsidise the conversion to ensure the 777 business case Into the future remains viable.

I think if you exxamine the curren 767P2F (which is almost entirely dominated by GE CF6 powered airframes) and the market case of getting a 20 year service life out of aircraft with well over 100,000 hours on the clock before conversion, your life cycle analysis for the 773p2f might be a tad conservative.

PepeTheFrog wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

Sounds expensive, lots of cheap 777s are going to be available soon.

Converting an 777 is all but cheap. I understood replacing the floor beams is an expensive job.

once the cabin is stripped to expose the floor beams? then they can cut out every other floor beam and replace them one for one qnd not even have to shore up the fuselage to keep it from warping, the Air conditioning system could be removed and set aside almost like a LEGO set. This isn't hard work, but it is tedious and time consuming. But in the end? They'd sure have a freighter they can depend on for a damn long time. the biggest drawback I see for the A350? id the Rolls Engines Not the Airframe...

PepeTheFrog wrote:

According to https://twitter.com/TLSWatch/status/1233151914587697153, a FedEx private jet with registration N1FE was in Toulouse 2 days ago.

See https://flic.kr/p/2ixvyCJ

This aircraft also visited Amsterdam Airport that day.

strfyr51 wrote:

PepeTheFrog wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

Sounds expensive, lots of cheap 777s are going to be available soon.

Converting an 777 is all but cheap. I understood replacing the floor beams is an expensive job.

once the cabin is stripped to expose the floor beams? then they can cut out every other floor beam and replace them one for one qnd not even have to shore up the fuselage to keep it from warping, the Air conditioning system could be removed and set aside almost like a LEGO set. This isn't hard work, but it is tedious and time consuming. But in the end? They'd sure have a freighter they can depend on for a damn long time. the biggest drawback I see for the A350? id the Rolls Engines Not the Airframe...

Why the RR engine? The Trent XWB is just the wet dream of every producer and airline. From start on it has far exceeded every expectations and every ETOPS certification recommendation possible.Seems it has an inflight shutdown rate of 1 to 2.000.000 cycles and according to my knowledge, not a single critical uncontained?

Of course, the Trent 1000...the pure horror for airlines and producers of a jet engines. Really interesting, that RR produced such a good and such a bad engine at same time.
And also the Trent 7000, which is just an upgrade and a family member of the Trent 1000, also seems to do pretty well. I have not heard of inflight shutdowns till now.

I can’t see an A359 based freighter. The A35K make far more sense with its upgraded wing, gear, engines. It would be a lot of engineering work to make a special -9 using -k parts.

Freighters usually have much higher MLW than pax equivalents. This usually requires fuse and wingbox strengthening to achieve. Sometimes, the lifetime cycle count and/or major check intervals are reduced to free up additional structures margin.

How much of this would be needed for the A35K?

Does the initial fuse design and structure contain provisions to make installing two giant doors easier? Are wires, hoses, controls, etc already located out of the way? How many fuse panels have to be new/replaced to allow the strengthening for the door?

Finally, are the existing floor beam adequate for general freight densities? If not, that’s an expensive endeavor there itself.

I'm skeptical Airbus will migrate A350-1000 parts to the A350-900 frame to make a freighter. The baseline A350-900 with a 280,000kg TOW should be sufficient to serve the role and it will be easier to design and, more importantly, integrate into the production process and I don't see it being popular enough to justify breaking that production commonality with the passenger frame. This is not a knock on Airbus - heavy freighters are just not strong sellers. The less modifications Airbus has to do, the smaller the investment and the less frames they have to sell to meet their RoI targets.

These squabbles about single pilot ops are funny. Single pilot ops are great and all, but good luck getting regulators and unions to approve. What happens if the one Fedex A350 pilot flying MEM-DXB decides to take a nap?

TWA772LR wrote:

These squabbles about single pilot ops are funny. Single pilot ops are great and all, but good luck getting regulators and unions to approve. What happens if the one Fedex A350 pilot flying MEM-DXB decides to take a nap?

They would just pull over in a truck stop like on the road ?

Stitch wrote:

This is not a knock on Airbus - heavy freighters are just not strong sellers. The less modifications Airbus has to do, the smaller the investment and the less frames they have to sell to meet their RoI targets.

The 777-200F is the best selling commercial freighter in history, so I have my sincere doubts about the claim that heavy freighters don't sell.

Stitch wrote:

I'm skeptical Airbus will migrate A350-1000 parts to the A350-900 frame to make a freighter. The baseline A350-900 with a 280,000kg TOW should be sufficient to serve the role and it will be easier to design and, more importantly, integrate into the production process and I don't see it being popular enough to justify breaking that production commonality with the passenger frame. This is not a knock on Airbus - heavy freighters are just not strong sellers. The less modifications Airbus has to do, the smaller the investment and the less frames they have to sell to meet their RoI targets.

....... heavy freighters are just not strong sellers

Hmm, Boeing has received 232 orders for the 777F and 107 orders for the 747-8F.

So, what you're actually saying is that Airbus shouldn't develop a relatively inexpensive heavy freighter capable of general cargo market densities (more than 10 pounds per cubic foot) like the 777F, because it's better to let Boeing keep the heavy freighter market to itself.

Of course, Airbus has just too much on its plate these days, so developing an A350-900F using A350-1000 parts (i.e. MLG and TXWB-97 engines) would be an insurmountable hurdle to overcome.

TWA772LR wrote:

These squabbles about single pilot ops are funny. Single pilot ops are great and all, but good luck getting regulators and unions to approve. What happens if the one Fedex A350 pilot flying MEM-DXB decides to take a nap?

Single-pilot cockpits includes remote supervision. With one pilot behind the controls, a second always stands ready to provide additional support. However, rather than being in the cockpit, the second aviator monitors the aircraft from the ground.

Stitch wrote:

I'm skeptical Airbus will migrate A350-1000 parts to the A350-900 frame to make a freighter.

That has already happened, all -900s have -1000 frames these days. It saves weight.

strfyr51 wrote:

PepeTheFrog wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

Sounds expensive, lots of cheap 777s are going to be available soon.

Converting an 777 is all but cheap. I understood replacing the floor beams is an expensive job.

once the cabin is stripped to expose the floor beams? then they can cut out every other floor beam and replace them one for one qnd not even have to shore up the fuselage to keep it from warping, the Air conditioning system could be removed and set aside almost like a LEGO set. This isn't hard work, but it is tedious and time consuming. But in the end? They'd sure have a freighter they can depend on for a damn long time. the biggest drawback I see for the A350? id the Rolls Engines Not the Airframe...

This thread is about the rumour of a near-term launch of an A350 freighter. Yet, it seems to have been hijacked by posters who are more than eager to talk down the A350F while talking up the 777 P2F.

Of course, while being busy talking down the A350F, it's not surprising that some individuals would also be preoccupied by talking down RR, as well.

zeke wrote:

Stitch wrote:

I'm skeptical Airbus will migrate A350-1000 parts to the A350-900 frame to make a freighter.

That has already happened, all -900s have -1000 frames these days. It saves weight.

I think he meant the MLG and engines etc from the 1000 being migrated back to the -900.

StTim wrote:

I think he meant the MLG and engines etc from the 1000 being migrated back to the -900.

That would involve putting a -900 tail and nose section onto the -1000 centre section. The centre section of the -900 and -1000 are the same length, the -1000 changes are additional frames in the forward (6 frames) and aft sections (5 frames). The -900 already has the -1000 nose gear.

Don't see FedEx buying an A350. Their intent several years ago was to have an all Boeing fleet....757, 767 and 777. Once the A300s, 10s and 11's are gone in a few years, they'll be golden. But like the weather, that changes.
Why in the world would there be a neo for 350?! The plane just came out!

StTim wrote:

zeke wrote:

Stitch wrote:

I'm skeptical Airbus will migrate A350-1000 parts to the A350-900 frame to make a freighter.

That has already happened, all -900s have -1000 frames these days. It saves weight.

I think he meant the MLG and engines etc from the 1000 being migrated back to the -900.

Boeing made pretty much the same thing when they made the 77W/772LR(F): they went to a much higher MTOW, they updated the wing and the landing gear and attached more powerful engines to them. What is there that Airbus couldn't do easily if they wanted to create a 319t A359F? Besides the specific cargo modifications, they would just need to shrink the A351 (and maybe enlarge its VTP, something that was not required for the 772LR for instance).

Let's just keep in mind that the article we are commenting is about a possible low density A351F which would require even less hurdles to be designed and which would carry as much as 98% of the volume of the 773ERF or 95% of its payload while burning at least 20% less fuel (or 25% more volume than the current 772F while still burning less fuel). No matter how cheap a used 777 can be even considering travelhound's approach (*), on intercontinental operations, there may be a point where the fuel saving achieved by the A351F would be compelling enough to justify an order. Coronavirus permitting, we will know soon enough which aircraft offers the best value for Fedex and the likes.

(*):

travelhound wrote:

The value proposition for the 777-300ERP2F revolves around total operating costs rather than cost of feed stock.