VSMUT wrote:PW100 wrote:LAX772LR wrote:Unless it can cross an ocean at/near max payload (which it's doubtful it'll be able to) then that's unlikely.
Best it can hope for at that point is intra-Asian freight; but the A330F hasn't been a stellar seller at all there either.LAX772LR wrote:767F has a wingspan that can fit in far more common parking spaces on cargo aprons...
So range isn't such an issue then . . .
Didn't you get the memo? The goalposts change depending on the argument. The aprons are too small and can't possibly under any imagination be expanded for an A330, trans atlantic range is an absolute must until it's a 767, and the 787BCF is a guaranteed winner the moment it is offered as a 767 replacement, despite having the same wingspan as an A330.
I don’t think it is that hard to understand.
There are 125 gates at Louisville For UPS. Everyone of them is used. Wider gates either reduces the number of gates or forces expansion. That’s a problem since the airport is space constrained.
Memphis is better, but the problem is that when airplanes are spread further apart on the airfield, it takes longer to move cargo long distances. It already takes a significant amount of time to move cargo to the gates that hold 777s. Slowing down the sort isn’t acceptable.
Wingspan is critical for freighters. A330s and 777s don’t work well for the domestic sort. For the overnight sort, speed is crucial, which requires airplanes parked closely together. Real estate is valuable since every plane is on the ground at the same time. This is why MD11s and 767s are so popular.
International isn’t as much of a problem. Airplanes flying long haul are on the ground much longer and there is time to process the cargo since it has to clear customs.