Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 2725
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

Re: A350F. Airbus looking to launch: Looking for customers

Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:49 pm

Revelation wrote:
FiscAutTecGarte wrote:
Entering the large freighter market is courageous..... They haven't had a decent foothold there since the A300...

To play devil's advocate, it sounds their design has converged more on the A350-1000 so they won't necessarily be spending a lot of money to develop the aircraft, and their finances can cope with the cost pretty readily. Who knows, maybe they will apply for launch aid. Something akin to the A330F's results would be disappointing but still totally affordable, and there's always the chance they do get big orders from the major operators and end up with a very successful product.


Yep. They're planning to build it on the same production line as the other A350s, and it seems to become a hybrid of -900 and -1000. This is definitely not a big risk development. Airbus has a lot to gain and not much to lose in the freighter market.
 
HPRamper
Posts: 5212
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 4:22 am

Re: A350F. Airbus looking to launch: Looking for customers

Fri Jul 30, 2021 6:02 pm

zeke wrote:
Spacepope wrote:
But major cargo hubs like MEM and SDF do.


I don't know enough about SDF to comment on that, the majority of stands at MEM do not have direct terminal access, and I would think wherever the A300/MD11/777 park now would be able to accommodate an A330/A350. Again I think this is a red herring, they went from 108 ft on the 727 to 160+ ft for the 763F without the world stopping.

For a subject you claim to not know much about, you are making a lot of incorrect statements.

The 767F is not important for general cargo carriers. When talking about the 767F whether it be -300F or -400F the conversation really needs to begin and end with the integrators - FX, UPS, DHL, and really now Amazon. By "gate" this is talking about a parking spot, a silhouette, nothing to do with a terminal or jetway. They are clearly delineated at hubs and ramps and cannot be changed on a whim. At my ramp we have 5 gates - if you increase the size needed, you lose a gate. Which is not a feasible option.

FX got around the 777 wingspan increase by modifying the driving-under-wing policy to allow freight to move under the outer portions of the wing - which is never allowed on any of their other aircraft. Otherwise there is not enough space between wingtips to allow cargo movement. At MEM they also designated a few areas as 777 capable, spots where an MD-11F had a few extra feet to begin with, or spots where they used remote stands not up against the sort building making it easier to modify the gate lines.

The 767 is not using gates previously used for the 727 - the 727 was replaced by the 757 which did add about eight feet on each side but the original 727 gates had enough room to accomodate that. They could not do that with the 767 which is about another 15 feet on each side. Ramps on the other hand did have to make expensive changes to accomodate the new types, BIL for instance had to build an entirely new ramp on the other end of the airport that could accomodate two 757s at once, the old ramp could take two 727s but was just not big enough for the upgauge. It was a multi-million dollar move for a 2-gate narrowbody ramp. Now extrapolate that to a large widebody ramp with 4, 5 gates.

The 764....well, same wingspan as the MD-11 but much larger than 767. A350....same wingspan as the 777F. These are very, very clear ways to delineate the way the largest cargo carriers view these aircraft types. The A350 will certainly and absolutely not replace the 763F for the integrators. Again, I'm not talking about the Transaeros or Atlases or Kazakh Air Cargos of the world, their business model is completely different, they don't own dedicated gates worldwide and can park on any random hardstand. For the integrators, that is, the carriers who really drive worldwide air cargo movement, the projected 764F is the clear successor to the MD-11F, the 777XF is aimed at current 777F and 744F operators, the A350 is aimed at the same audience. The 763F is selling like hotcakes right now because the customers can see there is no real equivalent on the drawing boards in the near future, the A300 is aging and they've long ago made the decision not to operate the A330F. Airbus and Boeing are in a pissing match right now over the top end of the market, the 764F with new engines will be a move in the right direction and I think all it would take is pressure from an Amazon et al to really get the ball rolling faster on that.
 
User avatar
FiscAutTecGarte
Posts: 520
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:40 pm

Re: A350F. Airbus looking to launch: Looking for customers

Fri Jul 30, 2021 6:04 pm

Revelation wrote:
FiscAutTecGarte wrote:
Entering the large freighter market is courageous..... They haven't had a decent foothold there since the A300...

To play devil's advocate, it sounds their design has converged more on the A350-1000 so they won't necessarily be spending a lot of money to develop the aircraft, and their finances can cope with the cost pretty readily. Who knows, maybe they will apply for launch aid. Something akin to the A330F's results would be disappointing but still totally affordable, and there's always the chance they do get big orders from the major operators and end up with a very successful product.


I think the fact that their last attempt, the A330F, received such a luke warm reception underscores the courage it takes to try it again. They are not willing to cede that market segment to one manufacturer; they are competing hard and they are bringing their best to do it. (It also helps that they appear to have a bit of spare capacity in these lean times as well.) The Cathay SinglePilot Ops in Cruise studies/certifications might play a role as well for some operators.

I hear folks clamoring that it needs the GE option... well, just to be clear, no current freight carrier has a GE9X in service and apparently may not until this proposed freighter is in service for 3 years. That just feels like throwing shade.

The big question is, will operators pay for it? Is the cost of introducing the new fleet time prohibitive? It's biggest competitor will indeed be used 773ER freighter conversions (due to acquisition costs). However, when comparing to new build options, it should be nearly as capable as the 77F or any future 77XF with a substantial reduction in operating expenses. In terms of acquisition costs, surely it will be as reasonably priced as a new build 77F or future 77XF.

As an aviation fan it's nice to see them doing something beyond their 'dominating the single aisle market' comfort zone. Strategically, it could be an affordable development that might be a bit of a volume spoiler for the 77XF. It's an uphill struggle for sure, challenging a market with a well established encumbant, but again it doesn't have to sell in huge numbers to be a success. Interesting times ahead.
 
2175301
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Fri Jul 30, 2021 6:21 pm

I suggest that the Moderators change the Title to: "Updated: Reuters: Airbus to develop A350 freighter"

Airbus has clearly not launched the A350 freighter at this time.
 
User avatar
FiscAutTecGarte
Posts: 520
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:40 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Fri Jul 30, 2021 7:17 pm

2175301 wrote:
I suggest that the Moderators change the Title to: "Updated: Reuters: Airbus to develop A350 freighter"

Airbus has clearly not launched the A350 freighter at this time.


or even Authority to Offer..... but correct, without anyone signing up as the launch customer, there is no launch.
 
inkjet7
Posts: 265
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2019 9:32 am

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Fri Jul 30, 2021 7:20 pm

reidar76 wrote:

The big question is: Will Airbus get certification for single pilot cruise for the A350F from day one? I think single pilot operations will be an important differentiator from a potential 77XF.


It does not need to be finished when the 350F rolls out. They'll make sure they can update existing planes with this option.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 27035
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: A350F. Airbus looking to launch: Looking for customers

Fri Jul 30, 2021 7:37 pm

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:
I hear folks clamoring that it needs the GE option... well, just to be clear, no current freight carrier has a GE9X in service and apparently may not until this proposed freighter is in service for 3 years. That just feels like throwing shade.

Those reports come from reliable sources such as The Air Current with links provided in this thread. They say that Airbus has been asked for GE engines on A350F. They don't say who is doing the asking or what their rationale is. This was all hashed out in this thread a few pages back.

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:
The big question is, will operators pay for it? Is the cost of introducing the new fleet time prohibitive? It's biggest competitor will indeed be used 773ER freighter conversions (due to acquisition costs). However, when comparing to new build options, it should be nearly as capable as the 77F or any future 77XF with a substantial reduction in operating expenses. In terms of acquisition costs, surely it will be as reasonably priced as a new build 77F or future 77XF.

Yes, that is the question from Page 1 of this thread, months ago.

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:
As an aviation fan it's nice to see them doing something beyond their 'dominating the single aisle market' comfort zone. Strategically, it could be an affordable development that might be a bit of a volume spoiler for the 77XF. It's an uphill struggle for sure, challenging a market with a well established encumbant, but again it doesn't have to sell in huge numbers to be a success. Interesting times ahead.

There's a line from a Bruce Springsteen song that seems applicable to me, it is along the lines of "I can't tell my courage from my desperation". I'm not saying it's either/or, I'm saying it's probably some of each.
 
morrisond
Posts: 3497
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: A350F. Airbus looking to launch: Looking for customers

Fri Jul 30, 2021 7:43 pm

HPRamper wrote:
zeke wrote:
Spacepope wrote:
But major cargo hubs like MEM and SDF do.


I don't know enough about SDF to comment on that, the majority of stands at MEM do not have direct terminal access, and I would think wherever the A300/MD11/777 park now would be able to accommodate an A330/A350. Again I think this is a red herring, they went from 108 ft on the 727 to 160+ ft for the 763F without the world stopping.

For a subject you claim to not know much about, you are making a lot of incorrect statements.

The 767F is not important for general cargo carriers. When talking about the 767F whether it be -300F or -400F the conversation really needs to begin and end with the integrators - FX, UPS, DHL, and really now Amazon. By "gate" this is talking about a parking spot, a silhouette, nothing to do with a terminal or jetway. They are clearly delineated at hubs and ramps and cannot be changed on a whim. At my ramp we have 5 gates - if you increase the size needed, you lose a gate. Which is not a feasible option.

FX got around the 777 wingspan increase by modifying the driving-under-wing policy to allow freight to move under the outer portions of the wing - which is never allowed on any of their other aircraft. Otherwise there is not enough space between wingtips to allow cargo movement. At MEM they also designated a few areas as 777 capable, spots where an MD-11F had a few extra feet to begin with, or spots where they used remote stands not up against the sort building making it easier to modify the gate lines.

The 767 is not using gates previously used for the 727 - the 727 was replaced by the 757 which did add about eight feet on each side but the original 727 gates had enough room to accomodate that. They could not do that with the 767 which is about another 15 feet on each side. Ramps on the other hand did have to make expensive changes to accomodate the new types, BIL for instance had to build an entirely new ramp on the other end of the airport that could accomodate two 757s at once, the old ramp could take two 727s but was just not big enough for the upgauge. It was a multi-million dollar move for a 2-gate narrowbody ramp. Now extrapolate that to a large widebody ramp with 4, 5 gates.

The 764....well, same wingspan as the MD-11 but much larger than 767. A350....same wingspan as the 777F. These are very, very clear ways to delineate the way the largest cargo carriers view these aircraft types. The A350 will certainly and absolutely not replace the 763F for the integrators. Again, I'm not talking about the Transaeros or Atlases or Kazakh Air Cargos of the world, their business model is completely different, they don't own dedicated gates worldwide and can park on any random hardstand. For the integrators, that is, the carriers who really drive worldwide air cargo movement, the projected 764F is the clear successor to the MD-11F, the 777XF is aimed at current 777F and 744F operators, the A350 is aimed at the same audience. The 763F is selling like hotcakes right now because the customers can see there is no real equivalent on the drawing boards in the near future, the A300 is aging and they've long ago made the decision not to operate the A330F. Airbus and Boeing are in a pissing match right now over the top end of the market, the 764F with new engines will be a move in the right direction and I think all it would take is pressure from an Amazon et al to really get the ball rolling faster on that.


This is purely a ramp handling issue. If they did a folding wing on an Potential 788F would that work at these hubs? A 788F would be shorter - would that be an Advantage? You might be able to get two 96"x125" pallets in up top side by side, and LD3's in the Belly.
 
morrisond
Posts: 3497
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Fri Jul 30, 2021 7:46 pm

inkjet7 wrote:
reidar76 wrote:

The big question is: Will Airbus get certification for single pilot cruise for the A350F from day one? I think single pilot operations will be an important differentiator from a potential 77XF.


It does not need to be finished when the 350F rolls out. They'll make sure they can update existing planes with this option.


That will be a big Advantage that Boeing will have no hope of matching with a 767 Cockpit. It would have to be 777X or 787 based probably.
 
User avatar
FiscAutTecGarte
Posts: 520
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:40 pm

Re: A350F. Airbus looking to launch: Looking for customers

Fri Jul 30, 2021 8:36 pm

Revelation wrote:
FiscAutTecGarte wrote:
As an aviation fan it's nice to see them doing something beyond their 'dominating the single aisle market' comfort zone. Strategically, it could be an affordable development that might be a bit of a volume spoiler for the 77XF. It's an uphill struggle for sure, challenging a market with a well established encumbant, but again it doesn't have to sell in huge numbers to be a success. Interesting times ahead.

There's a line from a Bruce Springsteen song that seems applicable to me, it is along the lines of "I can't tell my courage from my desperation". I'm not saying it's either/or, I'm saying it's probably some of each.


Could be a bit of a hail mary... an effort to keep the line moving during the hard times. Either way, sure is more interesting than watching nothing (not that commercial airframe manufacturing exists to entertain us.. LOL! )... Will be neat to see a triple bogey A350 w/ a different fuselage length. (Could this freighter lay the groundwork for a revisit of project sunrise? I know, know, readers are saying, 'Did he just go there?').

Back on topic, imagine if they had some market penetration, despite all of the footprint issues at the major consildators? What if Qatar resolved the paint skin / lightening shield issue with Airbus and placed an order for 25? Would that be sufficient momentum (I know A380F was cancelled with 27 orders, but the whole program, pax and freight, was in a world of hurt at the time) to confidently press on?
 
HPRamper
Posts: 5212
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 4:22 am

Re: A350F. Airbus looking to launch: Looking for customers

Fri Jul 30, 2021 11:02 pm

morrisond wrote:
HPRamper wrote:
zeke wrote:

I don't know enough about SDF to comment on that, the majority of stands at MEM do not have direct terminal access, and I would think wherever the A300/MD11/777 park now would be able to accommodate an A330/A350. Again I think this is a red herring, they went from 108 ft on the 727 to 160+ ft for the 763F without the world stopping.

For a subject you claim to not know much about, you are making a lot of incorrect statements.

The 767F is not important for general cargo carriers. When talking about the 767F whether it be -300F or -400F the conversation really needs to begin and end with the integrators - FX, UPS, DHL, and really now Amazon. By "gate" this is talking about a parking spot, a silhouette, nothing to do with a terminal or jetway. They are clearly delineated at hubs and ramps and cannot be changed on a whim. At my ramp we have 5 gates - if you increase the size needed, you lose a gate. Which is not a feasible option.

FX got around the 777 wingspan increase by modifying the driving-under-wing policy to allow freight to move under the outer portions of the wing - which is never allowed on any of their other aircraft. Otherwise there is not enough space between wingtips to allow cargo movement. At MEM they also designated a few areas as 777 capable, spots where an MD-11F had a few extra feet to begin with, or spots where they used remote stands not up against the sort building making it easier to modify the gate lines.

The 767 is not using gates previously used for the 727 - the 727 was replaced by the 757 which did add about eight feet on each side but the original 727 gates had enough room to accomodate that. They could not do that with the 767 which is about another 15 feet on each side. Ramps on the other hand did have to make expensive changes to accomodate the new types, BIL for instance had to build an entirely new ramp on the other end of the airport that could accomodate two 757s at once, the old ramp could take two 727s but was just not big enough for the upgauge. It was a multi-million dollar move for a 2-gate narrowbody ramp. Now extrapolate that to a large widebody ramp with 4, 5 gates.

The 764....well, same wingspan as the MD-11 but much larger than 767. A350....same wingspan as the 777F. These are very, very clear ways to delineate the way the largest cargo carriers view these aircraft types. The A350 will certainly and absolutely not replace the 763F for the integrators. Again, I'm not talking about the Transaeros or Atlases or Kazakh Air Cargos of the world, their business model is completely different, they don't own dedicated gates worldwide and can park on any random hardstand. For the integrators, that is, the carriers who really drive worldwide air cargo movement, the projected 764F is the clear successor to the MD-11F, the 777XF is aimed at current 777F and 744F operators, the A350 is aimed at the same audience. The 763F is selling like hotcakes right now because the customers can see there is no real equivalent on the drawing boards in the near future, the A300 is aging and they've long ago made the decision not to operate the A330F. Airbus and Boeing are in a pissing match right now over the top end of the market, the 764F with new engines will be a move in the right direction and I think all it would take is pressure from an Amazon et al to really get the ball rolling faster on that.


This is purely a ramp handling issue. If they did a folding wing on an Potential 788F would that work at these hubs? A 788F would be shorter - would that be an Advantage? You might be able to get two 96"x125" pallets in up top side by side, and LD3's in the Belly.


Ramp handling issues are incredibly important in these decisions and it astounds me how often they are poo-pooed on A.net in favor of more extraneous issues. Even repainting silhouette lines takes years of engineering and financial approvals. To your point, I think it would come down to a cost decision for the 788 many years down the road as the new-build 767F have at least 15-20 more years of life in them and they are still rolling off the delivery line. A 788 is certainly more plane than the 767 or A300 but not quite equal to the MD-11, I don't believe two AMJ containers can fit side by side on the main deck, the width dimensions are more akin to the A300 which can only accommodate 2x AAD. Keeping in mind for the integrators containers are the preferred form of package movement, not pallets. It is also less capable in belly volume although this is less of a big deal.
 
SteelChair
Posts: 1745
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

Re: A350F. Airbus looking to launch: Looking for customers

Fri Jul 30, 2021 11:14 pm

HPRamper wrote:
zeke wrote:
Spacepope wrote:
But major cargo hubs like MEM and SDF do.


I don't know enough about SDF to comment on that, the majority of stands at MEM do not have direct terminal access, and I would think wherever the A300/MD11/777 park now would be able to accommodate an A330/A350. Again I think this is a red herring, they went from 108 ft on the 727 to 160+ ft for the 763F without the world stopping.

For a subject you claim to not know much about, you are making a lot of incorrect statements.

The 767F is not important for general cargo carriers. When talking about the 767F whether it be -300F or -400F the conversation really needs to begin and end with the integrators - FX, UPS, DHL, and really now Amazon. By "gate" this is talking about a parking spot, a silhouette, nothing to do with a terminal or jetway. They are clearly delineated at hubs and ramps and cannot be changed on a whim. At my ramp we have 5 gates - if you increase the size needed, you lose a gate. Which is not a feasible option.

FX got around the 777 wingspan increase by modifying the driving-under-wing policy to allow freight to move under the outer portions of the wing - which is never allowed on any of their other aircraft. Otherwise there is not enough space between wingtips to allow cargo movement. At MEM they also designated a few areas as 777 capable, spots where an MD-11F had a few extra feet to begin with, or spots where they used remote stands not up against the sort building making it easier to modify the gate lines.

The 767 is not using gates previously used for the 727 - the 727 was replaced by the 757 which did add about eight feet on each side but the original 727 gates had enough room to accomodate that. They could not do that with the 767 which is about another 15 feet on each side. Ramps on the other hand did have to make expensive changes to accomodate the new types, BIL for instance had to build an entirely new ramp on the other end of the airport that could accomodate two 757s at once, the old ramp could take two 727s but was just not big enough for the upgauge. It was a multi-million dollar move for a 2-gate narrowbody ramp. Now extrapolate that to a large widebody ramp with 4, 5 gates.

The 764....well, same wingspan as the MD-11 but much larger than 767. A350....same wingspan as the 777F. These are very, very clear ways to delineate the way the largest cargo carriers view these aircraft types. The A350 will certainly and absolutely not replace the 763F for the integrators. Again, I'm not talking about the Transaeros or Atlases or Kazakh Air Cargos of the world, their business model is completely different, they don't own dedicated gates worldwide and can park on any random hardstand. For the integrators, that is, the carriers who really drive worldwide air cargo movement, the projected 764F is the clear successor to the MD-11F, the 777XF is aimed at current 777F and 744F operators, the A350 is aimed at the same audience. The 763F is selling like hotcakes right now because the customers can see there is no real equivalent on the drawing boards in the near future, the A300 is aging and they've long ago made the decision not to operate the A330F. Airbus and Boeing are in a pissing match right now over the top end of the market, the 764F with new engines will be a move in the right direction and I think all it would take is pressure from an Amazon et al to really get the ball rolling faster on that.


Truth. The wingspan on the 767 is not prohibitive, as the other airframes are. The re-engined 764F is the perfect solution. The problem is money, I'll believe it when I see it when cargo carriers pay for the development of a 764XF. The could, they have the money, unlikely the passenger carriers, but they typically don't spend money to develop new variants.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16449
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sat Jul 31, 2021 1:00 am

leoben wrote:
B767F has a wingspan of 156'


Try again, this time with winglets. The 767 argument has no traction with me as they are very new, they are not up for replacement. Bringing them up as an A350 competitor is just a red herring.

leoben wrote:
The talk about ramp space issues at the sorts is not hyperbole, it is very much a consideration.


Sure it’s a consideration, but it’s a baseless argument to make where they have already demonstrated the willingness to use herringbone parking in areas for the 767s.

leoben wrote:
Other than as a replacement for what are effectively new 777s, or as a small specialized subfleet; A350F's at FX is implausible based on current system form. The particulars at 5X or DHL may be different but I believe the fundamentals are the same.


I disagree, you see 777s and 747s doing the majority of the long haul flying, and the frequency of some of those flights is just once a week.

leoben wrote:
Yes, it is very US-centric to focus so much on FX/5X, but they are the 500lb gorillas. Seems fairly reasonable that integrating into Express operations would be somewhere on the list of considerations.


Yes and no. MEM does a lot of volume, not a lot of weight. HKG for example in normal time ships the same amount of air freight in weight as MEM does despite far fewer freight movements. The package carriers are a very small proportion of the HKG throughput. Our 744ERF fleet is starting to encounter operational restrictions due to emissions, which means other carriers are as well, and that is only going to more restrictive.

FedEx and UPS have very poor international network frequencies, I have sent a number of packages “express” with them in the past year taking 2 plus weeks for delivery. There is scope for someone to come in and actually provide a service. A350s have a speed, range, and volume advantage over the 77F.

Then there are new players like Amazon and SF Express (China is currently building to open 120 airports the size of CAN in the next 10 years), and replacement for airlines like Atlas, and cargolux.
 
LDRA
Posts: 417
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 3:01 am

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sat Jul 31, 2021 2:41 am

My read on this "launch" :

Airbus already knew they're not going to win the QR freighter order.

This "launch" is to show any future would be customer they are still serious about A350F. It's posturing
 
2175301
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sat Jul 31, 2021 6:44 am

zeke wrote:
FedEx and UPS have very poor international network frequencies, I have sent a number of packages “express” with them in the past year taking 2 plus weeks for delivery. There is scope for someone to come in and actually provide a service. A350s have a speed, range, and volume advantage over the 77F.


I have twice shipped items overseas via FedEx. They do not guarantee a delivery date. What they guarantee is when the package will be delivered to Customs in the other country for processing; and then I seem to recall that they promised a delivery time after customs released the package.

So a letter with a notarized and apostilled marriage certificate to my wife's mother took 2 days to get to customs in Kiev Ukraine from the central USA, about 10 days in customs, and a day to be delivered after that.

It was not FedEx's fault that Customs held up the package.

I don't recall the exact details of the other package, except that FedEx got it to customs in a timely manner and delivered it from customs in a timely manner - and that one took 3-4 weeks to get delivered.

I also have done a number of shipments to and from Canada using both FedEX and UPS. Those packages seem to fly though customs in less than a half a day, with one exception that took 2 days.

I believe that you are perhaps blaming the wrong party for long international package delivery delays, and I'm not sure who you think is going to get packages through Customs faster.


Have a great day,
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16449
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighters

Sat Jul 31, 2021 7:28 am

2175301 wrote:
I believe that you are perhaps blaming the wrong party for long international package delivery delays, and I'm not sure who you think is going to get packages through Customs faster.


According to the tracking information, 61 minutes from “international shipment release - import” to “in transit”, nothing to do with customs delays. It spent several days in Hong Kong after I shipped it waiting for a flight to Japan, then China, Vietnam to Singapore. The package spent 6 days in Singapore waiting for a flight that only comes through once a week. I followed via the app and the looked up the corresponding flights,, from Hong Kong to Singapore via KIX, CAN, SGN (FX5391/FX5199/FX5194) then went by 777, then by ground.

I suspect in normal times it would have been on a passenger aircraft.
 
mig17
Posts: 404
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 8:34 am

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sat Jul 31, 2021 8:19 am

LDRA wrote:
My read on this "launch" :

Airbus already knew they're not going to win the QR freighter order.

This "launch" is to show any future would be customer they are still serious about A350F. It's posturing

1- Whatever and whenever QR decide, there will be an A350F. Airbus shows it's confidence in the plane.
2- Airbus is taking a head start in the developpment of the plane. The A350 engineering teams have to be charged to fill the gap until neo or -1100/2000. While Boeing 777 engineering teams are quite busy at the moment on -9.
3- Airbus puts more pressure on the 777 line at a time things are not going to well.
 
VV
Posts: 2352
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: A350F. Airbus looking to launch: Looking for customers

Sat Jul 31, 2021 9:03 am

frigatebird wrote:
VV wrote:
reidar76 wrote:
Reuters: Airbus' board approves the launch of an A350 freighter. The freighter to enter service in 2025.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 021-07-29/


According to that schedule the A350F shouldl enter into service about two or three years before 777-8F does.

That's interesting.

Is it confirmed the 777-8F will not have EIS before 2027? I missed that.
....


Why would they try to target an EIS earlier than 2027?
The most likely sequence of events would be launch in 2023 with targeted EIS in 2027 or early 2028.
 
VV
Posts: 2352
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sat Jul 31, 2021 9:06 am

LDRA wrote:
My read on this "launch" :

Airbus already knew they're not going to win the QR freighter order.

This "launch" is to show any future would be customer they are still serious about A350F. It's posturing


Was it an industrial launch or just the Authority to Offer?
 
Noshow
Posts: 2847
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sat Jul 31, 2021 9:28 am

They might think about it but the claimed "launch" is hot air.
 
User avatar
sassiciai
Posts: 1151
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:26 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sat Jul 31, 2021 11:02 am

I don't really get all this skepticism about the use of "launch", so many here saying that it is not, and looking to reduce it to hot air! To make a bit of a misquote, "There is no such thing as a free launch"!! With this decision, Airbus is spending (more) real money on this A350F, likely measured in €millions, it is making the statement approved by its Board, and it is telling the world, Of course there will be get-out points if no-one orders it, "launch" does not mean "deliver". Not hot air IMHO!

I went here to find a formal definition https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... ish/launch

launch
verb
UK /lɔːntʃ/ US /lɑːntʃ/
launch verb (BEGIN)

B2 [ I or T ]
to begin something such as a plan or introduce something new such as a product
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 27035
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sat Jul 31, 2021 12:08 pm

sassiciai wrote:
I don't really get all this skepticism about the use of "launch", so many here saying that it is not, and looking to reduce it to hot air! To make a bit of a misquote, "There is no such thing as a free launch"!! With this decision, Airbus is spending (more) real money on this A350F, likely measured in €millions, it is making the statement approved by its Board, and it is telling the world, Of course there will be get-out points if no-one orders it, "launch" does not mean "deliver". Not hot air IMHO!

I went here to find a formal definition https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... ish/launch

launch
verb
UK /lɔːntʃ/ US /lɑːntʃ/
launch verb (BEGIN)

B2 [ I or T ]
to begin something such as a plan or introduce something new such as a product

By this standard we can also say Boeing launched NMA since they had a team of engineers assigned to it, were spending $millions on it, were selecting partners, and also had zero signed purchase agreements. We actually knew more about who NMA's potential customers were because Delta's CEO was publicly saying he wanted to be the launch customer and UA's CFO was making similar statements. UA had an obvious need that it only recently filled by ordering A321.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16449
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sat Jul 31, 2021 12:10 pm

sassiciai wrote:
I don't really get all this skepticism about the use of "launch"


Its in the same category as we saw further up in the thread where it was claimed that it would require 50 orders from a single airline. When any airline does order it, the same people never have the fortitude admit they were wrong. Always been the same way on a.net.
 
texl1649
Posts: 1963
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sat Jul 31, 2021 12:25 pm

VV wrote:
LDRA wrote:
My read on this "launch" :

Airbus already knew they're not going to win the QR freighter order.

This "launch" is to show any future would be customer they are still serious about A350F. It's posturing


Was it an industrial launch or just the Authority to Offer?


It’s clearly a commercial launch, not an industrial one. They won’t actually build any frames/get to real testing beyond a team of engineers working out specs/system changes unless/until someone orders 50+ of the type. Note that specs, and indeed production plans are entirely dependent on ‘how the market receives’ the offering;

He was equally reserved on how many of the new widebody freighters Airbus aims to sell or the market share it hopes to capture with the A350F, saying only that production rates will depend on “the commercial success” of the program. “The beauty of this program is that it will be embedded in the A350 production system,” he explained. “Owing to the commonality with the A350-900 and -1000 we will put [the freighter version] in the final assembly lines of the passenger A350. So we do not plan for individual production rates for the freighter.”


https://ww.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... rsion-a350

Having authority to negotiate actual sales is good, however. It would be more interesting if the announcement included something such as the aforementioned option/interest in GE as a provider.
 
morrisond
Posts: 3497
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sat Jul 31, 2021 1:25 pm

mig17 wrote:
LDRA wrote:
My read on this "launch" :

Airbus already knew they're not going to win the QR freighter order.

This "launch" is to show any future would be customer they are still serious about A350F. It's posturing

1- Whatever and whenever QR decide, there will be an A350F. Airbus shows it's confidence in the plane.
2- Airbus is taking a head start in the developpment of the plane. The A350 engineering teams have to be charged to fill the gap until neo or -1100/2000. While Boeing 777 engineering teams are quite busy at the moment on -9.
3- Airbus puts more pressure on the 777 line at a time things are not going to well.


Yes - they would be crazy not to do an A350F - however I continue to believe if they do they might as well make it the most Capable one out there and make it more capable than any possible 777X variant and to replace 747F down the road.

Take it to 340T and strap GE9X on it. Make an 350-950/1000F and an 80M A350-1100/1200 Passenger Variant using the same engines/MTOW. It would have more Volume and more lift than any viable 777xF.

I don't think an A350-950F that can haul only mid 90T will have much life as Boeing for sure will do some sort of 777xF and at some point an 787F bracketing it above and below.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16449
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sat Jul 31, 2021 1:45 pm

morrisond wrote:
Yes - they would be crazy not to do an A350F - however I continue to believe if they do they might as well make it the most Capable one out there and make it more capable than any possible 777X variant and to replace 747F down the road.

Take it to 340T and strap GE9X on it. Make an 350-950/1000F and an 80M A350-1100/1200 Passenger Variant using the same engines/MTOW. It would have more Volume and more lift than any viable 777xF.

I don't think an A350-950F that can haul only mid 90T will have much life as Boeing for sure will do some sort of 777xF and at some point an 787F bracketing it above and below.


I think they will do what can get to market as soon as possible (ie lowest risk), and have as much production commonality with other A350s (reduce risk), while providing an aircraft that at entry to service is the most effect in terms of cost/tonne, and cost/volume at the same price as a 77F.

Trying to make it too much aircraft takes time, using an engine that is not certified on type takes time and money (increased risk).

Airlines know Airbus has a track record of improving airframes once the base has entered service, they have done this multiple times with the A350.
 
morrisond
Posts: 3497
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sat Jul 31, 2021 1:59 pm

zeke wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Yes - they would be crazy not to do an A350F - however I continue to believe if they do they might as well make it the most Capable one out there and make it more capable than any possible 777X variant and to replace 747F down the road.

Take it to 340T and strap GE9X on it. Make an 350-950/1000F and an 80M A350-1100/1200 Passenger Variant using the same engines/MTOW. It would have more Volume and more lift than any viable 777xF.

I don't think an A350-950F that can haul only mid 90T will have much life as Boeing for sure will do some sort of 777xF and at some point an 787F bracketing it above and below.


I think they will do what can get to market as soon as possible (ie lowest risk), and have as much production commonality with other A350s (reduce risk), while providing an aircraft that at entry to service is the most effect in terms of cost/tonne, and cost/volume at the same price as a 77F.

Trying to make it too much aircraft takes time, using an engine that is not certified on type takes time and money (increased risk).

Airlines know Airbus has a track record of improving airframes once the base has entered service, they have done this multiple times with the A350.


You are right - it's just not as exciting :D . We have a very boring decade ahead.

How high can they take an A350-1000 based A350-950F structure without re-engine? Wasn't there speculation on something around 330T for A350-1000 passenger variants? What are the gear and wing limits for A350-1000?

An 350-950F will have more volume than the 777F but the density could be 15-20% lower limiting it's flexibility.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16449
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sat Jul 31, 2021 2:04 pm

texl1649 wrote:
It’s clearly a commercial launch, not an industrial one. They won’t actually build any frames/get to real testing beyond a team of engineers working out specs/system changes unless/until someone orders 50+ of the type.


I don't agree, I think they have already done their trade studies and know what they want to build, next is detail design and then production while at the same time sending the sales teams out to industry.

Cast you mind back to 2010 "Today’s A320neo announcement follows the approval given by the Board of Directors of EADS, Airbus’ shareholder company." from https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-r ... amily.html

2021 "Furthermore and following Board approval, we are enhancing our product line with an A350 freighter derivative, responding to customer feedback for increased competition and efficiency in this market segment." from https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-r ... sults.html
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16449
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sat Jul 31, 2021 2:15 pm

morrisond wrote:
How high can they take an A350-1000 based A350-950F structure without re-engine?


Flysmart (Airbus performance software) says around 350 tonnes is the maximum performance on a standard day at sea level with the -1000, that is not the structural limit. Production freighters normally have lower cycles/airframe hour limits than passenger aircraft, and they are able to increase weight easily this way (eg 77L/77W LOV is 60,000 cycles where the 77F is 37,500)
 
User avatar
sassiciai
Posts: 1151
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:26 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sat Jul 31, 2021 2:26 pm

Revelation wrote:
sassiciai wrote:
I don't really get all this skepticism about the use of "launch", so many here saying that it is not, and looking to reduce it to hot air! To make a bit of a misquote, "There is no such thing as a free launch"!! With this decision, Airbus is spending (more) real money on this A350F, likely measured in €millions, it is making the statement approved by its Board, and it is telling the world, Of course there will be get-out points if no-one orders it, "launch" does not mean "deliver". Not hot air IMHO!

I went here to find a formal definition https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... ish/launch

launch
verb
UK /lɔːntʃ/ US /lɑːntʃ/
launch verb (BEGIN)

B2 [ I or T ]
to begin something such as a plan or introduce something new such as a product

By this standard we can also say Boeing launched NMA since they had a team of engineers assigned to it, were spending $millions on it, were selecting partners, and also had zero signed purchase agreements. We actually knew more about who NMA's potential customers were because Delta's CEO was publicly saying he wanted to be the launch customer and UA's CFO was making similar statements. UA had an obvious need that it only recently filled by ordering A321.


Airbus issued a formal statement that the BOD had approved the launch of the A350F. Did the Boeing BOD do that with the NMA? DIdn't they believe all the potential customers? Just about any airline operating a freighter widebody today is a "potential customer" of the A350F, and at least an important one, Qatar, has said it is interested! How many angels dance on the top of your needle?
 
VV
Posts: 2352
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sat Jul 31, 2021 5:45 pm

texl1649 wrote:
VV wrote:
LDRA wrote:
My read on this "launch" :

Airbus already knew they're not going to win the QR freighter order.

This "launch" is to show any future would be customer they are still serious about A350F. It's posturing


Was it an industrial launch or just the Authority to Offer?


It’s clearly a commercial launch, not an industrial one. They won’t actually build any frames/get to real testing beyond a team of engineers working out specs/system changes unless/until someone orders 50+ of the type. Note that specs, and indeed production plans are entirely dependent on ‘how the market receives’ the offering;
.....


Do you think they can still halt the process and drop the whole thing if not enough commitments are obtained, say in the next twelve months?

Or do you think the freighter program is important enough such that Airbus launches it even if there is not any commitment?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 27035
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sat Jul 31, 2021 7:27 pm

VV wrote:
Do you think they can still halt the process and drop the whole thing if not enough commitments are obtained, say in the next twelve months?

Of course they can, they did so with the A380F.

VV wrote:
Or do you think the freighter program is important enough such that Airbus launches it even if there is not any commitment?

Of course not.
 
2175301
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sat Jul 31, 2021 8:02 pm

Revelation wrote:
VV wrote:
Do you think they can still halt the process and drop the whole thing if not enough commitments are obtained, say in the next twelve months?

Of course they can, they did so with the A380F.


And the A380F had signed contracts from I believe 2 cargo airlines..
 
texl1649
Posts: 1963
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sat Jul 31, 2021 8:03 pm

zeke wrote:
texl1649 wrote:
It’s clearly a commercial launch, not an industrial one. They won’t actually build any frames/get to real testing beyond a team of engineers working out specs/system changes unless/until someone orders 50+ of the type.


I don't agree, I think they have already done their trade studies and know what they want to build, next is detail design and then production while at the same time sending the sales teams out to industry.

Cast you mind back to 2010 "Today’s A320neo announcement follows the approval given by the Board of Directors of EADS, Airbus’ shareholder company." from https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-r ... amily.html

2021 "Furthermore and following Board approval, we are enhancing our product line with an A350 freighter derivative, responding to customer feedback for increased competition and efficiency in this market segment." from https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-r ... sults.html


Respectfully, throwing new engines on the A320 with a worldwide base of customers (to stave off/pre-empt the Boeing NSA), is a bit different than a carbon A350F with basically no cargo customers, and no engines in use for cargo from RR, nor any CFRP-framed cargo models of any kind in service. How many A320NEO’s (or test articles) were ever built before a launch customer was found?

VV, I think it’s clear Airbus thinks that if they spec/price it right, they will garner the launch orders in the next 12 months needed (probably closer to 100 frames). I don’t see where this all comes from, per earlier in the thread. UPS? See reply 64 (and quotes). DHL just topped off with some more 77F’s. (Reply 93).

If the 778 is going to 394T, I don’t see many ‘conquest’ sales for an A350F. Seahawk, had the best idea, but I guess per reply 93 that is implausible?

If a 777W(BCF) is no longer feasible for a cargo operator with the typically lower usage rates, a 777W would be even less Feasible for a passenger airline with high utilisation rates. Which means that more feedstock of 777W for freighter conversions would be available at a lower price.

The A350F, like the 777F or 777-8F only make sense for some operators and for a certain part of their fleets. It is a solution for the high utilisation part of the fleet. The problem is that most operators have recently taken on 777Fs for that part of the fleet, which are still quite young and mix pretty well with 777W(BCF)s.

A A350F would be mostly interesting for an operator that is looking at building a larger fleet of A330P2F and A321P2F to replace older frames. Maybe DHL is interested?


Now, to play devil’s advocate, the 77F has only sold around 250 frames, and was launched with just a 5 frame order from AF (and commitment from Air Canada).

https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2005-05-23 ... -Freighter

It seems like a big gamble in today’s market to make a similar leap of faith, yet perhaps it will happen.

Boeing has certainly studied a 794k lb MTOW 77x. Perhaps Airbus is simply going to attempt to pre-empt this before Boeing completes certification on the baseline 779 to then evolve into higher MTOW/-8x/cargo variants. Great, if it works, but I am dubious they’ll get any sizable orders the next few years for it.

https://www.alacpa.org/pdfs/2016-DIA%20 ... 202016.pdf
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4289
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sat Jul 31, 2021 8:44 pm

texl1649 wrote:
zeke wrote:
texl1649 wrote:
It’s clearly a commercial launch, not an industrial one. They won’t actually build any frames/get to real testing beyond a team of engineers working out specs/system changes unless/until someone orders 50+ of the type.


I don't agree, I think they have already done their trade studies and know what they want to build, next is detail design and then production while at the same time sending the sales teams out to industry.

Cast you mind back to 2010 "Today’s A320neo announcement follows the approval given by the Board of Directors of EADS, Airbus’ shareholder company." from https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-r ... amily.html

2021 "Furthermore and following Board approval, we are enhancing our product line with an A350 freighter derivative, responding to customer feedback for increased competition and efficiency in this market segment." from https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-r ... sults.html


Respectfully, throwing new engines on the A320 with a worldwide base of customers (to stave off/pre-empt the Boeing NSA), is a bit different than a carbon A350F with basically no cargo customers, and no engines in use for cargo from RR, nor any CFRP-framed cargo models of any kind in service. How many A320NEO’s (or test articles) were ever built before a launch customer was found?

VV, I think it’s clear Airbus thinks that if they spec/price it right, they will garner the launch orders in the next 12 months needed (probably closer to 100 frames). I don’t see where this all comes from, per earlier in the thread. UPS? See reply 64 (and quotes). DHL just topped off with some more 77F’s. (Reply 93).

If the 778 is going to 394T, I don’t see many ‘conquest’ sales for an A350F. Seahawk, had the best idea, but I guess per reply 93 that is implausible?

If a 777W(BCF) is no longer feasible for a cargo operator with the typically lower usage rates, a 777W would be even less Feasible for a passenger airline with high utilisation rates. Which means that more feedstock of 777W for freighter conversions would be available at a lower price.

The A350F, like the 777F or 777-8F only make sense for some operators and for a certain part of their fleets. It is a solution for the high utilisation part of the fleet. The problem is that most operators have recently taken on 777Fs for that part of the fleet, which are still quite young and mix pretty well with 777W(BCF)s.

A A350F would be mostly interesting for an operator that is looking at building a larger fleet of A330P2F and A321P2F to replace older frames. Maybe DHL is interested?


Now, to play devil’s advocate, the 77F has only sold around 250 frames, and was launched with just a 5 frame order from AF (and commitment from Air Canada).

https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2005-05-23 ... -Freighter

It seems like a big gamble in today’s market to make a similar leap of faith, yet perhaps it will happen.

Boeing has certainly studied a 794k lb MTOW 77x. Perhaps Airbus is simply going to attempt to pre-empt this before Boeing completes certification on the baseline 779 to then evolve into higher MTOW/-8x/cargo variants. Great, if it works, but I am dubious they’ll get any sizable orders the next few years for it.

https://www.alacpa.org/pdfs/2016-DIA%20 ... 202016.pdf

394t?!?!?! I doubt that’s going to happen!

Assuming you mean 794klb or 360t then the issue is, as I see it, that the more capability you add to the 777x family the more you undermine the market of the base 777-8x that the 777xf would use as a base. Personally I think it’s the way forward for Boeing, a 777-9 and -10 pax and a dedicated length freighter 8 of 360t+ MTOW.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
DCA350
Posts: 231
Joined: Sat May 04, 2019 7:27 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sat Jul 31, 2021 8:59 pm

2175301 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
VV wrote:
Do you think they can still halt the process and drop the whole thing if not enough commitments are obtained, say in the next twelve months?

Of course they can, they did so with the A380F.


And the A380F had signed contracts from I believe 2 cargo airlines..


UPS, Fed Ex and Emirates were firm orders. Not sure if there were others.
 
morrisond
Posts: 3497
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sat Jul 31, 2021 8:59 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
texl1649 wrote:
zeke wrote:

I don't agree, I think they have already done their trade studies and know what they want to build, next is detail design and then production while at the same time sending the sales teams out to industry.

Cast you mind back to 2010 "Today’s A320neo announcement follows the approval given by the Board of Directors of EADS, Airbus’ shareholder company." from https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-r ... amily.html

2021 "Furthermore and following Board approval, we are enhancing our product line with an A350 freighter derivative, responding to customer feedback for increased competition and efficiency in this market segment." from https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-r ... sults.html


Respectfully, throwing new engines on the A320 with a worldwide base of customers (to stave off/pre-empt the Boeing NSA), is a bit different than a carbon A350F with basically no cargo customers, and no engines in use for cargo from RR, nor any CFRP-framed cargo models of any kind in service. How many A320NEO’s (or test articles) were ever built before a launch customer was found?

VV, I think it’s clear Airbus thinks that if they spec/price it right, they will garner the launch orders in the next 12 months needed (probably closer to 100 frames). I don’t see where this all comes from, per earlier in the thread. UPS? See reply 64 (and quotes). DHL just topped off with some more 77F’s. (Reply 93).

If the 778 is going to 394T, I don’t see many ‘conquest’ sales for an A350F. Seahawk, had the best idea, but I guess per reply 93 that is implausible?

If a 777W(BCF) is no longer feasible for a cargo operator with the typically lower usage rates, a 777W would be even less Feasible for a passenger airline with high utilisation rates. Which means that more feedstock of 777W for freighter conversions would be available at a lower price.

The A350F, like the 777F or 777-8F only make sense for some operators and for a certain part of their fleets. It is a solution for the high utilisation part of the fleet. The problem is that most operators have recently taken on 777Fs for that part of the fleet, which are still quite young and mix pretty well with 777W(BCF)s.

A A350F would be mostly interesting for an operator that is looking at building a larger fleet of A330P2F and A321P2F to replace older frames. Maybe DHL is interested?


Now, to play devil’s advocate, the 77F has only sold around 250 frames, and was launched with just a 5 frame order from AF (and commitment from Air Canada).

https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2005-05-23 ... -Freighter

It seems like a big gamble in today’s market to make a similar leap of faith, yet perhaps it will happen.

Boeing has certainly studied a 794k lb MTOW 77x. Perhaps Airbus is simply going to attempt to pre-empt this before Boeing completes certification on the baseline 779 to then evolve into higher MTOW/-8x/cargo variants. Great, if it works, but I am dubious they’ll get any sizable orders the next few years for it.

https://www.alacpa.org/pdfs/2016-DIA%20 ... 202016.pdf

394t?!?!?! I doubt that’s going to happen!

Assuming you mean 794klb or 360t then the issue is, as I see it, that the more capability you add to the 777x family the more you undermine the market of the base 777-8x that the 777xf would use as a base. Personally I think it’s the way forward for Boeing, a 777-9 and -10 pax and a dedicated length freighter 8 of 360t+ MTOW.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Me too - could a 360t 778 Get to 105T+? To me that is the real danger for the 350F and why it needs to grow MTOW and possibly thrust.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16449
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sat Jul 31, 2021 10:15 pm

texl1649 wrote:
Respectfully, throwing new engines on the A320 with a worldwide base of customers (to stave off/pre-empt the Boeing NSA), is a bit different than a carbon A350F with basically no cargo customers, and no engines in use for cargo from RR, nor any CFRP-framed cargo models of any kind in service. How many A320NEO’s (or test articles) were ever built before a launch customer was found?


What are you saying here ?

What does “ no engines in use for cargo from RR” mean ?

What does “nor any CFRP-framed cargo models of any kind in service” mean ?

It took around 6 years from board approval for the A320neo to EIS, around 1000 were sold by first flight, around 2500 by EIS. The A320neo was a larger engineering challenge than the A350F.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16449
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sat Jul 31, 2021 10:19 pm

morrisond wrote:
Me too - could a 360t 778 Get to 105T+? To me that is the real danger for the 350F and why it needs to grow MTOW and possibly thrust.


Maximum payload is a function of MZFW, if anything increasing MTOW generally reduces payload.
 
texl1649
Posts: 1963
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sun Aug 01, 2021 12:02 am

flipdewaf wrote:
texl1649 wrote:
zeke wrote:

I don't agree, I think they have already done their trade studies and know what they want to build, next is detail design and then production while at the same time sending the sales teams out to industry.

Cast you mind back to 2010 "Today’s A320neo announcement follows the approval given by the Board of Directors of EADS, Airbus’ shareholder company." from https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-r ... amily.html

2021 "Furthermore and following Board approval, we are enhancing our product line with an A350 freighter derivative, responding to customer feedback for increased competition and efficiency in this market segment." from https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-r ... sults.html


Respectfully, throwing new engines on the A320 with a worldwide base of customers (to stave off/pre-empt the Boeing NSA), is a bit different than a carbon A350F with basically no cargo customers, and no engines in use for cargo from RR, nor any CFRP-framed cargo models of any kind in service. How many A320NEO’s (or test articles) were ever built before a launch customer was found?

VV, I think it’s clear Airbus thinks that if they spec/price it right, they will garner the launch orders in the next 12 months needed (probably closer to 100 frames). I don’t see where this all comes from, per earlier in the thread. UPS? See reply 64 (and quotes). DHL just topped off with some more 77F’s. (Reply 93).

If the 778 is going to 394T, I don’t see many ‘conquest’ sales for an A350F. Seahawk, had the best idea, but I guess per reply 93 that is implausible?

If a 777W(BCF) is no longer feasible for a cargo operator with the typically lower usage rates, a 777W would be even less Feasible for a passenger airline with high utilisation rates. Which means that more feedstock of 777W for freighter conversions would be available at a lower price.

The A350F, like the 777F or 777-8F only make sense for some operators and for a certain part of their fleets. It is a solution for the high utilisation part of the fleet. The problem is that most operators have recently taken on 777Fs for that part of the fleet, which are still quite young and mix pretty well with 777W(BCF)s.

A A350F would be mostly interesting for an operator that is looking at building a larger fleet of A330P2F and A321P2F to replace older frames. Maybe DHL is interested?


Now, to play devil’s advocate, the 77F has only sold around 250 frames, and was launched with just a 5 frame order from AF (and commitment from Air Canada).

https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2005-05-23 ... -Freighter

It seems like a big gamble in today’s market to make a similar leap of faith, yet perhaps it will happen.

Boeing has certainly studied a 794k lb MTOW 77x. Perhaps Airbus is simply going to attempt to pre-empt this before Boeing completes certification on the baseline 779 to then evolve into higher MTOW/-8x/cargo variants. Great, if it works, but I am dubious they’ll get any sizable orders the next few years for it.

https://www.alacpa.org/pdfs/2016-DIA%20 ... 202016.pdf

394t?!?!?! I doubt that’s going to happen!

Assuming you mean 794klb or 360t then the issue is, as I see it, that the more capability you add to the 777x family the more you undermine the market of the base 777-8x that the 777xf would use as a base. Personally I think it’s the way forward for Boeing, a 777-9 and -10 pax and a dedicated length freighter 8 of 360t+ MTOW.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


What does the alacpa slide reference then, for a taxi weight? 794,000 pound taxi weight for a 777-10X. Slide 34 (or 35).
 
744SPX
Posts: 617
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:20 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sun Aug 01, 2021 1:12 am

morrisond wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
texl1649 wrote:

Respectfully, throwing new engines on the A320 with a worldwide base of customers (to stave off/pre-empt the Boeing NSA), is a bit different than a carbon A350F with basically no cargo customers, and no engines in use for cargo from RR, nor any CFRP-framed cargo models of any kind in service. How many A320NEO’s (or test articles) were ever built before a launch customer was found?

VV, I think it’s clear Airbus thinks that if they spec/price it right, they will garner the launch orders in the next 12 months needed (probably closer to 100 frames). I don’t see where this all comes from, per earlier in the thread. UPS? See reply 64 (and quotes). DHL just topped off with some more 77F’s. (Reply 93).

If the 778 is going to 394T, I don’t see many ‘conquest’ sales for an A350F. Seahawk, had the best idea, but I guess per reply 93 that is implausible?



Now, to play devil’s advocate, the 77F has only sold around 250 frames, and was launched with just a 5 frame order from AF (and commitment from Air Canada).

https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2005-05-23 ... -Freighter



It seems like a big gamble in today’s market to make a similar leap of faith, yet perhaps it will happen.

Boeing has certainly studied a 794k lb MTOW 77x. Perhaps Airbus is simply going to attempt to pre-empt this before Boeing completes certification on the baseline 779 to then evolve into higher MTOW/-8x/cargo variants. Great, if it works, but I am dubious they’ll get any sizable orders the next few years for it.

https://www.alacpa.org/pdfs/2016-DIA%20 ... 202016.pdf

394t?!?!?! I doubt that’s going to happen!

Assuming you mean 794klb or 360t then the issue is, as I see it, that the more capability you add to the 777x family the more you undermine the market of the base 777-8x that the 777xf would use as a base. Personally I think it’s the way forward for Boeing, a 777-9 and -10 pax and a dedicated length freighter 8 of 360t+ MTOW.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Me too - could a 360t 778 Get to 105T+? To me that is the real danger for the 350F and why it needs to grow MTOW and possibly thrust.


It better be able to, IMO the goal should be 110-112T, particularly with the end of 748F production and no replacement on the horizon. Even 112T would only be a 744F replacement.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2691
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sun Aug 01, 2021 4:06 am

Revelation wrote:
VV wrote:
Do you think they can still halt the process and drop the whole thing if not enough commitments are obtained, say in the next twelve months?

Of course they can, they did so with the A380F.

VV wrote:
Or do you think the freighter program is important enough such that Airbus launches it even if there is not any commitment?

Of course not.


Airbus launched the 338 program with only the Hawaiian order, I recall it was for 8. Later, they cancelled and ordered the 787. So it is possible, but I think not prudent, for Airbus to go from this ATO, Authority to Offer, to an actual program launch. Typically, a launch is coupled with announcement of the initial orders.

Airbus projections of possible orders may affect the actual freighter configuration, if lower quantities anticipated it pretty much dictates a freighter the same size as either the 359 or 35X, shrinking the 35X to a new length would add substantial certification time over a program that does not affect the wetted surface. It's a dilemma, as it would be best to optimize the freighter, but adds millions to the price for all of the added certification work. The market size is good but not huge, the 777F has slightly more than 200 in service, 45 in backlog, so 20 per year production.
 
Noshow
Posts: 2847
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sun Aug 01, 2021 6:26 am

Looking at this headline I think this is mainly intended to be some strategic attack on the 777X in a weak moment. Announcing immediate competition for its most promising future variant trying to now tip over the entire business case. Especially these funny games with the fuselage length point in this direction mudding the water what to expect as 777XF competitor.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4289
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sun Aug 01, 2021 7:35 am

texl1649 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
texl1649 wrote:

Respectfully, throwing new engines on the A320 with a worldwide base of customers (to stave off/pre-empt the Boeing NSA), is a bit different than a carbon A350F with basically no cargo customers, and no engines in use for cargo from RR, nor any CFRP-framed cargo models of any kind in service. How many A320NEO’s (or test articles) were ever built before a launch customer was found?

VV, I think it’s clear Airbus thinks that if they spec/price it right, they will garner the launch orders in the next 12 months needed (probably closer to 100 frames). I don’t see where this all comes from, per earlier in the thread. UPS? See reply 64 (and quotes). DHL just topped off with some more 77F’s. (Reply 93).

If the 778 is going to 394T, I don’t see many ‘conquest’ sales for an A350F. Seahawk, had the best idea, but I guess per reply 93 that is implausible?



Now, to play devil’s advocate, the 77F has only sold around 250 frames, and was launched with just a 5 frame order from AF (and commitment from Air Canada).

https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2005-05-23 ... -Freighter

It seems like a big gamble in today’s market to make a similar leap of faith, yet perhaps it will happen.

Boeing has certainly studied a 794k lb MTOW 77x. Perhaps Airbus is simply going to attempt to pre-empt this before Boeing completes certification on the baseline 779 to then evolve into higher MTOW/-8x/cargo variants. Great, if it works, but I am dubious they’ll get any sizable orders the next few years for it.

https://www.alacpa.org/pdfs/2016-DIA%20 ... 202016.pdf

394t?!?!?! I doubt that’s going to happen!

Assuming you mean 794klb or 360t then the issue is, as I see it, that the more capability you add to the 777x family the more you undermine the market of the base 777-8x that the 777xf would use as a base. Personally I think it’s the way forward for Boeing, a 777-9 and -10 pax and a dedicated length freighter 8 of 360t+ MTOW.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


What does the alacpa slide reference then, for a taxi weight? 794,000 pound taxi weight for a 777-10X. Slide 34 (or 35).

The maximum taxi weight which is indeed stated as 794klb, which, as also shown right next to that number is the 360t (360,152kg) figure. Not sure where you dragged 394t from.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
User avatar
flee
Posts: 1490
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:14 am

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sun Aug 01, 2021 7:42 am

744SPX wrote:
It better be able to, IMO the goal should be 110-112T, particularly with the end of 748F production and no replacement on the horizon. Even 112T would only be a 744F replacement.

I think having something between the MD11F and B744F may be good. Not all airlines will use the payload limit and some will want more volume.
 
VV
Posts: 2352
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:16 am

DCA350 wrote:
2175301 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Of course they can, they did so with the A380F.


And the A380F had signed contracts from I believe 2 cargo airlines..


UPS, Fed Ex and Emirates were firm orders. Not sure if there were others.


It is interesting to note that Airbus launched the A380F with fewer than 30 orders.
Perhaps they would launch the A350 freighter with fewer than 30 initial commitments too.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16449
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:43 am

flipdewaf wrote:
The maximum taxi weight which is indeed stated as 794klb, which, as also shown right next to that number is the 360t (360,152kg) figure. Not sure where you dragged 394t from.

Fred


The don’t know the difference between a ton and tonne, 794 klb = 397 ton = 360 tonnes

1 ton = 2000 lb.
1 tonne = 2204 lb
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4289
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sun Aug 01, 2021 10:23 am

zeke wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
The maximum taxi weight which is indeed stated as 794klb, which, as also shown right next to that number is the 360t (360,152kg) figure. Not sure where you dragged 394t from.

Fred


The don’t know the difference between a ton and tonne, 794 klb = 397 ton = 360 tonnes

1 ton = 2000 lb.
1 tonne = 2204 lb

Makes sense. As long as we consistently say the A35k based A350F has 351.5t MTOW.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 27035
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sun Aug 01, 2021 1:29 pm

JayinKitsap wrote:
Revelation wrote:
VV wrote:
Do you think they can still halt the process and drop the whole thing if not enough commitments are obtained, say in the next twelve months?

Of course they can, they did so with the A380F.

VV wrote:
Or do you think the freighter program is important enough such that Airbus launches it even if there is not any commitment?

Of course not.

Airbus launched the 338 program with only the Hawaiian order, I recall it was for 8. Later, they cancelled and ordered the 787. So it is possible, but I think not prudent, for Airbus to go from this ATO, Authority to Offer, to an actual program launch. Typically, a launch is coupled with announcement of the initial orders.

Airbus projections of possible orders may affect the actual freighter configuration, if lower quantities anticipated it pretty much dictates a freighter the same size as either the 359 or 35X, shrinking the 35X to a new length would add substantial certification time over a program that does not affect the wetted surface. It's a dilemma, as it would be best to optimize the freighter, but adds millions to the price for all of the added certification work. The market size is good but not huge, the 777F has slightly more than 200 in service, 45 in backlog, so 20 per year production.

A lot of my answer was based on context, and some times that is missed.

When asked if Airbus can cancel a program even after "launching" it, of course Airbus can cancel programs (even ones with firm orders), they've done it before. Presumably any order they sign will have termination clauses, and usually orders taken before EIS are easier to cancel than ones for a going concern, for obvious reasons.

When asked if we thought Airbus would launch a program with no commitments at all, of course I think they won't, yet they are a rich corporation and we have no way of knowing how important the program is to their leadership. We have some enthusiastic comments to the media but we're all adults and know there is this thing known as dissembling.

If asked if I think Airbus will launch the program, my answer is as before, I don't know. It's clear they feel the market is supportive of freighters, their A350 is a great baseline model and its production line has more slack in it than desired, and Boeing clearly is in a weakened state. It's still not clear who needs new freighters in the A350F size category any time soon in large enough volume to support a new market entrant, especially if that new market entrant is going to spend a lot to get into the market. Yet Airbus leadership may feel it is a "strategic imperative" to launch a freighter regardless of how strong or weak the business case is. Perhaps this is kind of thinking that led to A330F?

It's interesting to see Boeing's Calhoun publicly warm to the idea of a 777XF. Presumably this is a reaction to the QR statements and the Airbus moves, as well as IMO his reluctance to commit Boeing to a clean sheet airplane program any time soon. He can use the freighter concept as something for the engineers to do after 779, fill some future production slots, and take the heat off him to develop a clean sheet.

Seems we have a risk of a "mutually assured destruction" scenario where both companies launch products because they don't want to yield market to the other and they split the market with neither making enough business to make either program a success. In theory the reason why corporate executives get fat pay packages is because they have the wisdom to see such a scenario emerging in advance and avoid it. That is the theory at least.
 
User avatar
sassiciai
Posts: 1151
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:26 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sun Aug 01, 2021 2:10 pm

Revelation wrote:
JayinKitsap wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Of course they can, they did so with the A380F.


Of course not.

Airbus launched the 338 program with only the Hawaiian order, I recall it was for 8. Later, they cancelled and ordered the 787. So it is possible, but I think not prudent, for Airbus to go from this ATO, Authority to Offer, to an actual program launch. Typically, a launch is coupled with announcement of the initial orders.

Airbus projections of possible orders may affect the actual freighter configuration, if lower quantities anticipated it pretty much dictates a freighter the same size as either the 359 or 35X, shrinking the 35X to a new length would add substantial certification time over a program that does not affect the wetted surface. It's a dilemma, as it would be best to optimize the freighter, but adds millions to the price for all of the added certification work. The market size is good but not huge, the 777F has slightly more than 200 in service, 45 in backlog, so 20 per year production.

A lot of my answer was based on context, and some times that is missed.

When asked if Airbus can cancel a program even after "launching" it, of course Airbus can cancel programs (even ones with firm orders), they've done it before. Presumably any order they sign will have termination clauses, and usually orders taken before EIS are easier to cancel than ones for a going concern, for obvious reasons.

When asked if we thought Airbus would launch a program with no commitments at all, of course I think they won't, yet they are a rich corporation and we have no way of knowing how important the program is to their leadership. We have some enthusiastic comments to the media but we're all adults and know there is this thing known as dissembling.

If asked if I think Airbus will launch the program, my answer is as before, I don't know. It's clear they feel the market is supportive of freighters, their A350 is a great baseline model and its production line has more slack in it than desired, and Boeing clearly is in a weakened state. It's still not clear who needs new freighters in the A350F size category any time soon in large enough volume to support a new market entrant, especially if that new market entrant is going to spend a lot to get into the market. Yet Airbus leadership may feel it is a "strategic imperative" to launch a freighter regardless of how strong or weak the business case is. Perhaps this is kind of thinking that led to A330F?

It's interesting to see Boeing's Calhoun publicly warm to the idea of a 777XF. Presumably this is a reaction to the QR statements and the Airbus moves, as well as IMO his reluctance to commit Boeing to a clean sheet airplane program any time soon. He can use the freighter concept as something for the engineers to do after 779, fill some future production slots, and take the heat off him to develop a clean sheet.

Seems we have a risk of a "mutually assured destruction" scenario where both companies launch products because they don't want to yield market to the other and they split the market with neither making enough business to make either program a success. In theory the reason why corporate executives get fat pay packages is because they have the wisdom to see such a scenario emerging in advance and avoid it. That is the theory at least.


Good post! I might still dispute the degree to which this event merits "launch" or not, but let's put that down as semantics with no value!

I am not an aeronautical engineer, just a retired software man who has followed this thread from the start and read - sometimes not understanding some - every post. It seems quite evident seen through my lenses that 2 aircraft competing to do a more-or-less similar task of flying 90+tons of freight circa5000km should be largely similar. But if one is already 20 or 30tons heavier than the other when empty, how is this even a competition? If this premise is close to correct, then this Airbus launch surely cuts the 777F off at its knees!

All the big fleets of A300/B767/B747/MD-11/20-year old P2F will time out/cycle out in a future where the current A350/B777X are just becoming mature, and the competition will become much sharper as there will be limited alternative choice. Will the 20-30ton advantage work in Airbus' favour?

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos