Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Gremlinzzzz
Posts: 419
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:28 am

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Tue Aug 17, 2021 2:24 pm

morrisond wrote:
Exactly. This will not be a cheap derivative.

When has someone built a custom length freighter that did not have a passenger equivalent?

A 777xF has always been baked into the program and I would assume the same for an 787F at some point. Those eventual versions would have been taken into consideration in the base designs, just like any manufacturer would.

The 777X will get past its issues and there is no reason an 777xF couldn't come by 2025/2026. However they don't really need it yet either. Even with higher fuel burn I'm sure Boeing will be able to price 777F keenly enough that 350F or 777xF won't garner many sales until customers have to buy them.

We can't forget Calhoun's comment either when he said that they may be able to produce the 777F past the new emissions target date. Boeing's big 77F customers may just be telling them that they would just prefer to keep taking 77F.
It would simply be another variant in the same family. So I do not get why any of this is a huge issue.

It is going to be similar to the -1000 which does not need to sell big numbers for it to make sense because the entire program is anchored to a -900 that will see more than 1000 by the time they need to re-engine.
Last edited by Gremlinzzzz on Tue Aug 17, 2021 2:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
Daysleeper
Posts: 743
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Tue Aug 17, 2021 2:27 pm

Opus99 wrote:

Has there been another X?

We are not going to see an XF before the end of the decade? Oh come on. The 777 and 777X are more different than they are similar. This literally a variant. It’s not a derivative. Saying 2025/26 is not optimistic.

Well I guess that’s your opinion


I don’t see any reason why Boeing would want to rush into building a freighter variant when the passenger version is both not certified or selling at present. Especially when they have the the 777F available, the only motivation I can see for developing the XF would be to meet future regulation towards the end of the decade, by which point the A350F may have eaten its lunch – So to speak.

I also said “an update with an X in its name” not that it was specifically called X….

And yes, these are indeed my opinions. This being a forum rather than a news site and me being a Chemist rather than a journalist I assume that most of the posts here are just that. Opinions :)
 
Opus99
Topic Author
Posts: 2675
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Tue Aug 17, 2021 2:57 pm

Daysleeper wrote:
Opus99 wrote:

Has there been another X?

We are not going to see an XF before the end of the decade? Oh come on. The 777 and 777X are more different than they are similar. This literally a variant. It’s not a derivative. Saying 2025/26 is not optimistic.

Well I guess that’s your opinion


I don’t see any reason why Boeing would want to rush into building a freighter variant when the passenger version is both not certified or selling at present. Especially when they have the the 777F available, the only motivation I can see for developing the XF would be to meet future regulation towards the end of the decade, by which point the A350F may have eaten its lunch – So to speak.

I also said “an update with an X in its name” not that it was specifically called X….

And yes, these are indeed my opinions. This being a forum rather than a news site and me being a Chemist rather than a journalist I assume that most of the posts here are just that. Opinions :)

The reason you mentioned is reason enough. They can only price out 350F for so long. The fate or success of the passenger version in many cases has little bearing on the freighter. Any which way you look at it. 747-8 being a positive example and 330 being a negative one. Now, it’s not as if the passenger will never be certified, it will. If there’s demand for the 777X freighter. Why shouldn’t they launch it? They won’t start building it tomorrow. The passenger version is at a very different stage than the freighter is so you don’t have to be splitting teams in half. The design still won’t even be frozen at launch so I see no reason why. It’s like saying a company should not launch 2 variants of an aircraft before they’re in service. They should only launch one at a time. Deal with the issue and move on the next variant and don’t forget there’s a lot of learning that comes with the initial variant that will make the second one cheaper and faster to bring to market both from certification and production.

350 family is brilliant and I’m sure the freighter will be too but Boeing cannot just sit down and leave 350F to have a nice time and sit down looking like fools
 
Daysleeper
Posts: 743
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Tue Aug 17, 2021 3:23 pm

Opus99 wrote:
The reason you mentioned is reason enough. They can only price out 350F for so long. The fate or success of the passenger version in many cases has little bearing on the freighter. Any which way you look at it. 747-8 being a positive example and 330 being a negative one. Now, it’s not as if the passenger will never be certified, it will. If there’s demand for the 777X freighter. Why shouldn’t they launch it? They won’t start building it tomorrow. The passenger version is at a very different stage than the freighter is so you don’t have to be splitting teams in half. The design still won’t even be frozen at launch so I see no reason why. It’s like saying a company should not launch 2 variants of an aircraft before they’re in service. They should only launch one at a time. Deal with the issue and move on the next variant and don’t forget there’s a lot of learning that comes with the initial variant that will make the second one cheaper and faster to bring to market both from certification and production.

350 family is brilliant and I’m sure the freighter will be too but Boeing cannot just sit down and leave 350F to have a nice time and sit down looking like fools


Yeah, the 748F is a good example of how a freighter can turn around an otherwise doomed program, however I believe a big part of its success was down to it not having any competition. A future XF will not have that luxury nor does will it have the benefit of being based on an already profitable program. So it will be brave of Boeing to sink money into developing an XF without the advantage of an monopoly on the market.

Incidentally other than lackluster sales, the 748 was a successful program – I was wrong previously stating it was the 777.

For me, I think if Airbus actually garner some orders for the 350F and it actually goes into production, Boings efforts and cash would be better invested in producing a 787 freighter rather than the 77X – There is obviously going to be a massive market for a 767F replacement and without a NeoF they would again have the market to themselves.
 
Scotron12
Posts: 592
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:13 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Tue Aug 17, 2021 3:28 pm

All Airbus has done is launched the A350F varient. It will be interesting to see which if any Cargo carriers order it.

We're in the middle of a pandemic which has boosted cargo over pax. Once pax travel rebounds, which it will, then we will see the true demand.

When that will happen is open right now, it's all a guess. But, it's not a bad gamble by Airbus to do this. As is the same with Boeing on the B777X platform.

I would guess that Airbus has less hindrance than Boeing finance wise. The hit of $6.5Billion to the 777X is still a hit, sunk cost or not

Rgds
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26982
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Tue Aug 17, 2021 4:20 pm

Daysleeper wrote:
Yeah, the 748F is a good example of how a freighter can turn around an otherwise doomed program, however I believe a big part of its success was down to it not having any competition. A future XF will not have that luxury nor does will it have the benefit of being based on an already profitable program. So it will be brave of Boeing to sink money into developing an XF without the advantage of an monopoly on the market.

I think it's brave of Airbus to dive into a market where it has little to no installed freighter customer base to sell in to. Boeing's task is to just hold serve, not create new opportunities. It may not have the luxury of a profitable program to build on, but it does have the luxury of having already written off the cost of developing the base platform. Both have the issue of the pax traffic decline due to pandemic impacting their widebody models. It's hard to see either make much money in a split market.
 
amdiesen
Posts: 222
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 2:27 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Tue Aug 17, 2021 4:43 pm

review: The simplicity of the A350F is that Airbus projects to take the A359 and replace the four-bogie landing gear barrel section with the longer six-bogie landing gear barrel section of the a350-1000. The wings and engines of the a350-1000 are chosen. Airbus has tentatively decided to independently design/add a cargo door barrel section. Design and manufacturing are now left with the challenges of solving for an effective final product. This choice was made in lieu of maximizing for ideal utility of the most likely customer-users.
review: The VLA market that the 777 derivatives serve is functionally saturated by a global fleet that is comparatively young and the sweet spot in the express market will be facilitated by the innovation that is the b773ersf. The current b777fx paper airplane is an immature design when taking into account market evolution since conception.
review: The return of belly freight and COVID's impact on breaking boundaries will further supplement lift in the saturated VLA class. Lite conversions, preighters, and added financial strength of the second tier freighter airlines will all continue to play a competitive role in the short-term.
review: Global frames needing to be replaced are 24 b744cfs that are operating for carriers that have historically purchased new freighter aircraft. Plus 98 MD11 frames operated by FX & 5X. The MD11s continue to move to regional roles and the utility needing to be replaced has the gate/wing size as a significant factor. The b764f would be a natural replacement for the utility it provides. FX has espoused a GE powered b777 / b767 fleet aspiration.
hypothesis: A b773ersf would out-compete an a350-1000f to the point of irrelevance
hypo: An a359.5f would out-compete a original spec b778f to the point of marginalizing the business case of the later
hypo: An aggressive b772LR conversion program would marginalize/defer the business case of an a359.5f
thesis: production lifecycles of passenger airplanes and their freighter derivatives follow a ~20year run, which is close to the ~22 year average age of a passenger plane. While this is symbiotic for passenger aircraft, it creates a mis-alignment for freighters
hypo: an end-of production lifecycle sale of a b772f is a substitution risk for a b777xf
hypo: a b772/3 conversion is a substitution risk for the a350f program, however, it increases the likelyhood of maintaining the b777 customer base but moves potential new-build freighter sales from the ~sunrise of the production cycle to the ~sunset of the production cycle. Importantly, these conversions remove passenger planes from an over-supplied and over-ordered global market.

Airlines with the highest probability of becoming A359.5F operators are:
UPS(16), likely looking to replace ~1/3 of their md11's with a volume choice over wingspan, possibly replacing some b744s with a tool with legs.
Cargolux(8), likely co-launch customer, will view the A359.5F as a tool that can open secondary markets as a complement to their current traditional trunk service. Viewing a mid-term fleet horizon with b748fs and nimble a359.5fs makes for intriguing analytics. It is important to note that Cargolux appreciates purchasing in the sunrise of a production lifecycle.
Cathay(?) is a natural customer following the Cargolux thought path, however, weight should be given to previous posts suggesting politics and power-shifts will likely wane opportunities for this hong-kong based carrier.
Singapore(8), There are favorable economics of running a fleet of eight A359.5Fs versus a fleet of seven aging b744s plus fleet symbiosis with their substantive a350 commitment. The ~18yr average fleet age of the b744fs gives Singapore flexibility/choice.
ABC's(?) large b748f fleet lends to a a359.5f compliment. Russia's historical bias for dependable Boeing engineering, the challenging Russian business environment which includes cost-of-capital issues, and the latest legal kerfluffle are all factors.
Qatar(0) Qatar's b772fs have an average age of ~five years on an asset that has an expected life of 34+/- 3yrs. One does not get the same benefits, and has ancillary business costs, of following the passenger model of volume new buying and selling off at mid-life. Qatari noise is a colorful attempt to incite a competitive struggle within the airframer/engine-maker oligopoly for a competitive price on their preferred b777xf tool. Qatar would ideally prefer to trickle new orders into the fleet at favorable purchase economics.
Emirates(0) licking their a380 wounds, their new reality is a b777 backbone esp. for freight and a 50 lot shoe-horned order for a359s. They will struggle with the idea of attempting to convert some of the passenger a350 orders to freighter in a frustratingly perverse analytical exercise. It is interesting that they have, so far, divested three b772fs. The most pragmatic choice is for the firm to convert b772/3s as a means of rebalancing their passenger fleet for the new normal and the acceptance of b779s; reselling the conversions when the patchwork time-frame utility has been met.
Beyond carriers discussed, what other carrier would seriously consider the a359.5f in the short/mid-term?

Two uncommon discussion points include
1) It is in Boeing's best interest for time to pass to allow the current b747/b777 fleets to age. The b777 is in the twilight of its production life-cycle and seven of its orders are unlikely to be realized. Further, the six ABC orders are questionable. Frames purchased in the twilight of a production life-cycle have a comparatively shorter economic life. Further, innovation impacts/mutes purchase price as TCO and useful life expectancies are given proper weight/perspective. The b777fx needs a significant engineering overhaul based on market and technological events since inception. An aggressive a359.5f puts Boeing on the defensive as the product that they would naturally produce will/would be different whether or not the a359.5f exists. If the a359.5f exists Boeing will likely have to add to the MLG, addressing MZFW, and produce a plane that maximizes kg/m^3; effectively marginalizing the business case for all three VLA freighter variants.
Airbus is, yet again, effectively applying business tactics. Boeing has an effective business choice in aggressively converting b772LR's to freighter. They have an entrenched GE powered b777 base.
The smart strategy would be approach 5x and offer to supply ~20 b772lr freighter conversions to replace portions of the md11 and b744 fleet. Additionally BCC should offer to purchase China Southern's two b744ers, preferably with two b772f new builds. BCC would then go to Cargolux and aggressively lease these ERs placing Cargolux into a more fence sitting position. One might consul approaching/plying ABC with caviar and vodka in a fence mending effort as the b772fs on order make an excellent compliment to their b748f fleet and have financing advantages over the a359.5f.
2) DHL's relationship with Kalitta appears to be accelerating and its relationship with Atlas appears to be waning. Kalitta, having the most b744cf's, has chosen the path of b773ersf to further develop their relationship with DHL and economically replace their b744cfs. This strategy can be replicated with Amazon. Atlas may find its dod contracts waning in concert with an Amazon/DHL shift to b773ersf work with competing carriers. Polar is at risk and Atlas is more likely to have the utility for its fleet and DHL is likely to want to divest. While Atlas proper would be a natural a359.5f operator and southern may need to seriously look at the b773ersf; Atlas has a recessionary risk of having the largest fleet of parked b747s in the world.
3(bonus). Converting an a359p2f produces an express class tool. Amazon would be the most probably customer. An a359.5f effort followed by an a359p2f program would be a good way to start digging. If Boeing keeps staring at that headlight, they better hope that it is a motorcycle instead of a freight train.
Last edited by amdiesen on Tue Aug 17, 2021 5:09 pm, edited 4 times in total.
 
Daysleeper
Posts: 743
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Tue Aug 17, 2021 4:53 pm

Revelation wrote:
I think it's brave of Airbus to dive into a market where it has little to no installed freighter customer base to sell in to. Boeing's task is to just hold serve, not create new opportunities. It may not have the luxury of a profitable program to build on, but it does have the luxury of having already written off the cost of developing the base platform. Both have the issue of the pax traffic decline due to pandemic impacting their widebody models. It's hard to see either make much money in a split market.


I agree, if Airbus had announced that they are building the A350F with no orders then indeed this would be a brave move on their part. However as has been discussed countless times in this thread this is not what they have done – Instead with an authority to offer they are able to gauge any potential market for such a derivative with little to no expense whilst also forcing Boeing to be extremely competitive on both the current 777F, and any potential replacement.

It seems to be a win\win to me – If there is a market great, they can add another variant and revenue stream to an already profitable program, if there isn’t then they will have severely hampered the competition by just offering it.

And whist I agree that the Boeing has an advantage as the incumbent freighter provider, I don’t see why Airbus wouldn’t be able to overcome this issue. Least we forget that wasn’t so long ago that Boeing and Douglass completely dominated every market segment, now the largest civilian aircraft provider is; Airbus.
 
User avatar
FiscAutTecGarte
Posts: 515
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:40 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Tue Aug 17, 2021 5:27 pm

amdiesen wrote:
review: The simplicity of the A350F is that Airbus projects to take the A359 and replace the four-bogie landing gear barrel section with the longer six-bogie landing gear barrel section of the a350-1000. The wings and engines of the a350-1000 are chosen. Airbus has tentatively decided to independently design/add a cargo door barrel section. Design and manufacturing are now left with the challenges of solving for an effective final product. This choice was made in lieu of maximizing for ideal utility of the most likely customer-users.


I enjoyed reading your post very much. it was the first thing that you typed that was of most interest to me....

It helps us to understand how Airbus may have determined the unique length of the proposed A350F.

A359 rear fuselage + 1 additional plug for the cargo door section + A35J center section (six-boegie landing gear/wing root) + A359 front section. Of course the A350-1000 already uses the A359 front and rear sections.... they just have additional plugs fore and aft... a 6 frame plug between the center section and the front section... and a 5 frame plub between the center section and the rear section. The center section of the A35J is the same length as the cneter section of the A359.. it just has it's gear bay extended by 1 frame (visually it looks like that extension moved it rearward a tad)..

Would the A350F utilize a smaller plug in the rear to construct the cargo door, or is the existing 5 frame section of the A35J the correct size for that? Would that create a tail heavy plane if a corresponding plug was not installed in front of the wing? Would they instead develop a smaller plug in for the rear (cargo door) and corresponding smaller plug for the front (balance)

Image

other interesting tidbits:
https://thepointsguy.co.uk/2018/01/airbus-a350-1000-a350-900-difference/
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 2722
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Tue Aug 17, 2021 5:51 pm

I think many in this thread are completely missing the point.

- Airbus does not have a good foothold in the freighter market with current offerings. Meaning there are opportunities to be had.
- Engineering and producing an A350F is as far away from a "moonshot" you could possibly get in aviation.
- The aircraft will be produced with existing parts, at the existing production line, with existing tooling.

Ergo, it doesn't need a huge order book to launch. It's minimal investment, or as close to it as you can get.
Even if only a handful were sold, the investment is worth it.
 
Gremlinzzzz
Posts: 419
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:28 am

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Tue Aug 17, 2021 6:15 pm

Daysleeper wrote:
And whist I agree that the Boeing has an advantage as the incumbent freighter provider, I don’t see why Airbus wouldn’t be able to overcome this issue. Least we forget that wasn’t so long ago that Boeing and Douglass completely dominated every market segment, now the largest civilian aircraft provider is; Airbus.


JetBuddy wrote:
I think many in this thread are completely missing the point.

- Airbus does not have a good foothold in the freighter market with current offerings. Meaning there are opportunities to be had.
- Engineering and producing an A350F is as far away from a "moonshot" you could possibly get in aviation.
- The aircraft will be produced with existing parts, at the existing production line, with existing tooling.

Ergo, it doesn't need a huge order book to launch. It's minimal investment, or as close to it as you can get.
Even if only a handful were sold, the investment is worth it.

If Airbus cannot offer a freighter at this time to really try and get some orders in, when is the right time to offer one?

The cost is so little compared to whatever they may gain in benefits going forward. Business is about taking risks, and this might be one of the smaller risks that Airbus is taking.
 
amdiesen
Posts: 222
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 2:27 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Tue Aug 17, 2021 6:19 pm

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:
amdiesen wrote:
review: The simplicity of the A350F is that Airbus projects to take the A359 and replace the four-bogie landing gear barrel section with the longer six-bogie landing gear barrel section of the a350-1000. The wings and engines of the a350-1000 are chosen. Airbus has tentatively decided to independently design/add a cargo door barrel section. Design and manufacturing are now left with the challenges of solving for an effective final product. This choice was made in lieu of maximizing for ideal utility of the most likely customer-users.


I enjoyed reading your post very much. it was the first thing that you typed that was of most interest to me....

It helps us to understand how Airbus may have determined the unique length of the proposed A350F.

A359 rear fuselage + 1 additional plug for the cargo door section + A35J center section (six-boegie landing gear/wing root) + A359 front section. Of course the A350-1000 already uses the A359 front and rear sections.... they just have additional plugs fore and aft... a 6 frame plug between the center section and the front section... and a 5 frame plub between the center section and the rear section. The center section of the A35J is the same length as the cneter section of the A359.. it just has it's gear bay extended by 1 frame (visually it looks like that extension moved it rearward a tad)..

Would the A350F utilize a smaller plug in the rear to construct the cargo door, or is the existing 5 frame section of the A35J the correct size for that? Would that create a tail heavy plane if a corresponding plug was not installed in front of the wing? Would they instead develop a smaller plug in for the rear (cargo door) and corresponding smaller plug for the front (balance)

Image...


Thank you. Your questions are great. Your 'key changes' picture quotes "Wing Position moved one frame forward to help with performance and loadability". Will design and manufacturing have the necessary piece movement flexibility to implement an optimal structure?
Disclosure and clarity; my simplicity description was gleaned from posts and readings over time. My data driven contributions are reflections from a financial and market analytical lens without aeronautical engineering pretenses. There are efforts at humor, however, the quality is subjective.


JetBuddy wrote:
...Even if only a handful were sold, the investment is worth it.

by "handful" do you mean 38? ;)
 
morrisond
Posts: 3497
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Tue Aug 17, 2021 6:28 pm

Gremlinzzzz wrote:
Daysleeper wrote:
And whist I agree that the Boeing has an advantage as the incumbent freighter provider, I don’t see why Airbus wouldn’t be able to overcome this issue. Least we forget that wasn’t so long ago that Boeing and Douglass completely dominated every market segment, now the largest civilian aircraft provider is; Airbus.


JetBuddy wrote:
I think many in this thread are completely missing the point.

- Airbus does not have a good foothold in the freighter market with current offerings. Meaning there are opportunities to be had.
- Engineering and producing an A350F is as far away from a "moonshot" you could possibly get in aviation.
- The aircraft will be produced with existing parts, at the existing production line, with existing tooling.

Ergo, it doesn't need a huge order book to launch. It's minimal investment, or as close to it as you can get.
Even if only a handful were sold, the investment is worth it.

If Airbus cannot offer a freighter at this time to really try and get some orders in, when is the right time to offer one?

The cost is so little compared to whatever they may gain in benefits going forward. Business is about taking risks, and this might be one of the smaller risks that Airbus is taking.


Airbus would be crazy not to do it - and the cost is not that large - but it won't be for Boeing either. There is almost no way that Boeing won't respond.

Where they will fall down is if they don't make it the best it can be and not optimize it so it can be as flexible as possible which is where A330F lost out to 777, and it never had a chance compared to 767 due to its wingspan issues.

A half baked solution won't cut it. Now something like Folding tips that allow it to fit in narrower gates, or a flip up nose to allow loading of long objects or single pilot operations from the get go - those are game changers in this space - but nothing that can't be replicated by Boeing.

They are not doing anything unique.
 
User avatar
FiscAutTecGarte
Posts: 515
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:40 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Tue Aug 17, 2021 6:57 pm

amdiesen wrote:
Thank you. Your questions are great. Your 'key changes' picture quotes "Wing Position moved one frame forward to help with performance and loadability". Will design and manufacturing have the necessary piece movement flexibility to implement an optimal structure?

JetBuddy wrote:
...Even if only a handful were sold, the investment is worth it.

by "handful" do you mean 38? ;)


Ah... I missed the wing position moved up by a frame... which explains why the front plug is 6 frames and the rear plug is 5. Perhaps then the landing gear bay 1 frame stretch is forward then as well, to match the new wing position...

anyway, will be interesting to see the final configuration of the A350F....

So who needs 38 that could serve as a launch customer?
 
Daysleeper
Posts: 743
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Tue Aug 17, 2021 6:57 pm

morrisond wrote:

Where they will fall down is if they don't make it the best it can be and not optimize it so it can be as flexible as possible which is where A330F lost out to 777, and it never had a chance compared to 767 due to its wingspan issues.

A half baked solution won't cut it. Now something like Folding tips that allow it to fit in narrower gates, or a flip up nose to allow loading of long objects or single pilot operations from the get go - those are game changers in this space - but nothing that can't be replicated by Boeing.

They are not doing anything unique.


I really don’t see what if any possible advantage Airbus would gain by offering something “unique” - nose loading? How many potential customers really need that option? Folding wings? I could be mistaken but I thought both the 777 and A350 have around a 65m span as does the 77X when its wings are folded.

For me, as I have outlined a number of times already the real opportunity here is for Airbus is to gauge the potential market and start to build up a potential customer base for minimal expenditure and risk. Adding complexity serves no purpose.
 
Gremlinzzzz
Posts: 419
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:28 am

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Tue Aug 17, 2021 7:25 pm

morrisond wrote:
Gremlinzzzz wrote:
Daysleeper wrote:
And whist I agree that the Boeing has an advantage as the incumbent freighter provider, I don’t see why Airbus wouldn’t be able to overcome this issue. Least we forget that wasn’t so long ago that Boeing and Douglass completely dominated every market segment, now the largest civilian aircraft provider is; Airbus.


JetBuddy wrote:
I think many in this thread are completely missing the point.

- Airbus does not have a good foothold in the freighter market with current offerings. Meaning there are opportunities to be had.
- Engineering and producing an A350F is as far away from a "moonshot" you could possibly get in aviation.
- The aircraft will be produced with existing parts, at the existing production line, with existing tooling.

Ergo, it doesn't need a huge order book to launch. It's minimal investment, or as close to it as you can get.
Even if only a handful were sold, the investment is worth it.

If Airbus cannot offer a freighter at this time to really try and get some orders in, when is the right time to offer one?

The cost is so little compared to whatever they may gain in benefits going forward. Business is about taking risks, and this might be one of the smaller risks that Airbus is taking.


Airbus would be crazy not to do it - and the cost is not that large - but it won't be for Boeing either. There is almost no way that Boeing won't respond.

Where they will fall down is if they don't make it the best it can be and not optimize it so it can be as flexible as possible which is where A330F lost out to 777, and it never had a chance compared to 767 due to its wingspan issues.

A half baked solution won't cut it. Now something like Folding tips that allow it to fit in narrower gates, or a flip up nose to allow loading of long objects or single pilot operations from the get go - those are game changers in this space - but nothing that can't be replicated by Boeing.

They are not doing anything unique.

All they have to do is play to their strength and offer a product that is competitive. Their strengths are:

1) They have built the A350 in a manner which allows for a freighter in a much simple manner than the 787.
2) They are going to have a lighter plane regardless of what the competition does with the 777X, so the question is what is the payload going to look like? Going by Bjorn Ferhm from Leeham, they will get there after they have talked with clients. No reason to think that this has not happened, is not happening or will not happen.
3) This entire venture is going to be relatively cheap. The freighters are going to be built on the existing line, using the same tooling, on a product that has sold well.

You are not going to get folding wing tips like the 777X, you are not going to get the flip up nose like the 747. Not accomplishing any of these does not make it a half baked solution, neither does the demand that the solution come in with single pilot ops to be viable. All Airbus has to do is offer a product that has the range and the payload to go with the benefits that will come with a lighter jetliner.

If they get the payload and range requirements right, they will have done their job and it will be up to the market to decide whether operating a new type for cargo ops is worth it or not. This is what they have to worry about.
 
Noshow
Posts: 2838
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Tue Aug 17, 2021 7:33 pm

This is an interesting market created by the future more strict emission rules. I wonder if Boeing better should have kept the 747-8F? At least mothballed until Amazon could bite. Latest engines and a proven frame.
The A350 is certainly interesting as a freighter due to the fuselage diameter with steep walls. It will be something for the rich guys that own passenger A350 in parallel.
 
morrisond
Posts: 3497
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Tue Aug 17, 2021 8:11 pm

Gremlinzzzz wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Gremlinzzzz wrote:


If Airbus cannot offer a freighter at this time to really try and get some orders in, when is the right time to offer one?

The cost is so little compared to whatever they may gain in benefits going forward. Business is about taking risks, and this might be one of the smaller risks that Airbus is taking.


Airbus would be crazy not to do it - and the cost is not that large - but it won't be for Boeing either. There is almost no way that Boeing won't respond.

Where they will fall down is if they don't make it the best it can be and not optimize it so it can be as flexible as possible which is where A330F lost out to 777, and it never had a chance compared to 767 due to its wingspan issues.

A half baked solution won't cut it. Now something like Folding tips that allow it to fit in narrower gates, or a flip up nose to allow loading of long objects or single pilot operations from the get go - those are game changers in this space - but nothing that can't be replicated by Boeing.

They are not doing anything unique.

All they have to do is play to their strength and offer a product that is competitive. Their strengths are:

1) They have built the A350 in a manner which allows for a freighter in a much simple manner than the 787.
2) They are going to have a lighter plane regardless of what the competition does with the 777X, so the question is what is the payload going to look like? Going by Bjorn Ferhm from Leeham, they will get there after they have talked with clients. No reason to think that this has not happened, is not happening or will not happen.
3) This entire venture is going to be relatively cheap. The freighters are going to be built on the existing line, using the same tooling, on a product that has sold well.

You are not going to get folding wing tips like the 777X, you are not going to get the flip up nose like the 747. Not accomplishing any of these does not make it a half baked solution, neither does the demand that the solution come in with single pilot ops to be viable. All Airbus has to do is offer a product that has the range and the payload to go with the benefits that will come with a lighter jetliner.

If they get the payload and range requirements right, they will have done their job and it will be up to the market to decide whether operating a new type for cargo ops is worth it or not. This is what they have to worry about.


1. You really think the fact that Airbus uses Panels vs having to cut a whole in a barrel is some huge cost advantage? Sorry I didn't realize that the 787 barrels have no other holes cut in them. I think you would be hard pressed to make the argument an A350 is less costly to build than an 787.

2. Yes a lighter plane but one that is most likely not as capable. You go much beyond 320T and the A350 will start to be hampered by its small wing just like the 77W was. With the probable lower cargo density of an 350F it will probably be taking off much closer to MTOW a lot more often than an 778XF.

3. It will be just as cheap if not cheaper for Boeing to make F versions of the 787, 777X and even cheaper to reengine the 767F or 777F.

I meant half baked in terms of not being able to lift higher density cargo in excess of an 777ERSF. If there only advantage is fuel economy that usually doesn't do a lot in the freighter market.

An 778XF with big wing and half generation newer engines could be pretty close in terms of fuel burn.
 
Daysleeper
Posts: 743
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Tue Aug 17, 2021 8:38 pm

morrisond wrote:

1. You really think the fact that Airbus uses Panels vs having to cut a whole in a barrel is some huge cost advantage? Sorry I didn't realize that the 787 barrels have no other holes cut in them. I think you would be hard pressed to make the argument an A350 is less costly to build than an 787.

2. Yes a lighter plane but one that is most likely not as capable. You go much beyond 320T and the A350 will start to be hampered by its small wing just like the 77W was. With the probable lower cargo density of an 350F it will probably be taking off much closer to MTOW a lot more often than an 778XF.

3. It will be just as cheap if not cheaper for Boeing to make F versions of the 787, 777X and even cheaper to reengine the 767F or 777F.

I meant half baked in terms of not being able to lift higher density cargo in excess of an 777ERSF. If there only advantage is fuel economy that usually doesn't do a lot in the freighter market.

An 778XF with big wing and half generation engines could be pretty close in terms of fuel burn.


I’m not sure why you see cargo density as such a big deal, the 777F sold didn’t it? Assuming Airbus is able to at least match its capabilities whilst also being much more efficient and regulation compliant then there is going to be some interest from freight haulers.

With regards to costs, yeah, I have no doubt it will be just as cheap for Boeing to produce the XF variant and I hope they do, but at the moment its nothing more than a paper version of a significantly delayed and uncertified aircraft type. Hell, if Airbus actually get some orders this year its possible that the A350F could even beat the passenger X into service.

I have stated a couple of times already in this thread that I believe Boeings best bet would be developing a 787F – The 767F is going to need a modern replacement and without a NeoF it would have that market to it’s self.
 
morrisond
Posts: 3497
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Tue Aug 17, 2021 9:01 pm

Daysleeper wrote:
morrisond wrote:

1. You really think the fact that Airbus uses Panels vs having to cut a whole in a barrel is some huge cost advantage? Sorry I didn't realize that the 787 barrels have no other holes cut in them. I think you would be hard pressed to make the argument an A350 is less costly to build than an 787.

2. Yes a lighter plane but one that is most likely not as capable. You go much beyond 320T and the A350 will start to be hampered by its small wing just like the 77W was. With the probable lower cargo density of an 350F it will probably be taking off much closer to MTOW a lot more often than an 778XF.

3. It will be just as cheap if not cheaper for Boeing to make F versions of the 787, 777X and even cheaper to reengine the 767F or 777F.

I meant half baked in terms of not being able to lift higher density cargo in excess of an 777ERSF. If there only advantage is fuel economy that usually doesn't do a lot in the freighter market.

An 778XF with big wing and half generation engines could be pretty close in terms of fuel burn.


I’m not sure why you see cargo density as such a big deal, the 777F sold didn’t it? Assuming Airbus is able to at least match its capabilities whilst also being much more efficient and regulation compliant then there is going to be some interest from freight haulers.

With regards to costs, yeah, I have no doubt it will be just as cheap for Boeing to produce the XF variant and I hope they do, but at the moment its nothing more than a paper version of a significantly delayed and uncertified aircraft type. Hell, if Airbus actually get some orders this year its possible that the A350F could even beat the passenger X into service.

I have stated a couple of times already in this thread that I believe Boeings best bet would be developing a 787F – The 767F is going to need a modern replacement and without a NeoF it would have that market to it’s self.


Yes the 77F will haul Cargo about 25% denser at max volume than an 95T 70M 350F. It's a big difference.

An A350F with a different length fuselage won't make it into service in less time than the 777-9 will take. The 350F is still a paper airplane.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4289
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Tue Aug 17, 2021 9:19 pm

morrisond wrote:
2. Yes a lighter plane but one that is most likely not as capable. You go much beyond 320T and the A350 will start to be hampered by its small wing just like the 77W was. With the probable lower cargo density of an 350F it will probably be taking off much closer to MTOW a lot more often than an 778XF.
No, actually not the case. The relative takeoff performance can be compared using 3 basic parameters in this case, weight, wing are and thrust. (Thrust to weight ratio)/(wing loading) giving an approximation for how fast it needs to go to take off and how quickly it can get to that speed. if we compare the 777X to the A35K with these categories at their current MTOW (351/5 vs 319t respectively) we see that the advantage albeit small is to the A350 (0.8% so within the margin of error). At these takeoff weights the A35k would marginally outrange the 777XF at identical payloads. When the MTOWs are increased to the anticipated 360t for the 777X and 323t for the A35k then the ranges at identical payloads are almost identical however the parameters that govern takeoff performance (as mentioned above) are about 5-6% better in favour of the A35K.
morrisond wrote:
3. It will be just as cheap if not cheaper for Boeing to make F versions of the 787, 777X
Why would it be cheaper?
morrisond wrote:
I meant half baked in terms of not being able to lift higher density cargo in excess of an 777ERSF. If there only advantage is fuel economy that usually doesn't do a lot in the freighter market.
Who knows what the density is? Reuters claimed the A350 was 107t and the IAI claim 101 for the ERSF?
https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2011-02-28 ... in-Service

11.35hrs per day utilisation rate, seems to me that 5-6m/year isnt to be sniffed at. Its a straight trade between capital vs cash costs. The freighter market has traditionally been low utilisation which has been to the benefit of converted freighters but that might be changing. Alas an inherently more expensive (heavier) aircraft in the form of a 777XF doesn't solve that issue either.

morrisond wrote:
An 778XF with big wing and half generation newer engines could be pretty close in terms of fuel burn.

1. Why would a big wing make fuel burn lower? My truck is bogger than my kia and the fuel burn on my kia is significantly lower.
2. That newer engine isnt giving better performance to the 779X compared to the A35k so are you anticipating it being a different setup for the 777XF?

Fred
 
trex8
Posts: 5718
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Tue Aug 17, 2021 9:20 pm

amdiesen wrote:
Beyond carriers discussed, what other carrier would seriously consider the a359.5f in the short/mid-term?


I've said this several times already here but people keep overlooking them
CI- China Airlines
They have 18 744Fs to replace, (they were Boeings largest customer for the 744F with 21 ordered and delivered). ROC CAA will not let any Taiwan carrier keep an airline on the register which is over 26 years old anymore, at least pax ones, not absolutely sure if the rule applies to cargo. If so all their 744Fs have to go starting mid this decade and even youngest by this time next decade. (leaving aside even if they want to do the 4th or more heavy check on those planes).
The ordered 6 777Fs in 2019, I think everyone saw these as 744F replacements but recent interviews by the CEO suggest they are in addition to the 747s as he's talking about a 24 plane freighter fleet still when the last 777 is delivered in 2023.
CI are like the 10th overall largest cargo carrier by FTK and 5th internationally by tonnage. Pre covid 1/3 of their revenue was cargo. They will be flying freighters for years and they will need the 747s replaced. If they don't pick up more 777Fs in sufficient number to potentially replace most of those 747s, they could even use the A350F to replace the 777s in a decade.
They are a A359 operator already - 14. They have 23 A333s to replace. I'm not holding my breath they will replace those with 787s. Almost certainly all A350s or maybe combination A350/A330neo. You could be talking 50-60 A350 types easily in their fleet if they chose the freighter and go the A350 road and not A330neo. If they replace their 77Ws with A35Js even more.(OT but I'll bet with Starlux- if they survive, the 77W may become a little too big for CI in the future). The A350 could become the only wide body in their fleet eventually.
They fancy themselves the "environmentally green" airline in Taiwan. Having a fleet of "greener" planes (compared to 747s and more 777Fs) will fit nicely.
CI will be good for 2 dozen freighters in the next decade just to maintain capacity and with a definite need for these to start showing up by mid this decade, like when this A350 thing or even potentially a 778F enters service.
Last edited by trex8 on Tue Aug 17, 2021 9:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4289
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Tue Aug 17, 2021 9:21 pm

morrisond wrote:

Yes the 77F will haul Cargo about 25% denser at max volume than an 95T 70M 350F. It's a big difference.



You do realise that if the cargo is denser, you can just fill the rest of the plane with air right? :rotfl: If its less dense you cant carry it outside....

Fred
 
Opus99
Topic Author
Posts: 2675
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Tue Aug 17, 2021 9:33 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
morrisond wrote:
2. Yes a lighter plane but one that is most likely not as capable. You go much beyond 320T and the A350 will start to be hampered by its small wing just like the 77W was. With the probable lower cargo density of an 350F it will probably be taking off much closer to MTOW a lot more often than an 778XF.
No, actually not the case. The relative takeoff performance can be compared using 3 basic parameters in this case, weight, wing are and thrust. (Thrust to weight ratio)/(wing loading) giving an approximation for how fast it needs to go to take off and how quickly it can get to that speed. if we compare the 777X to the A35K with these categories at their current MTOW (351/5 vs 319t respectively) we see that the advantage albeit small is to the A350 (0.8% so within the margin of error). At these takeoff weights the A35k would marginally outrange the 777XF at identical payloads. When the MTOWs are increased to the anticipated 360t for the 777X and 323t for the A35k then the ranges at identical payloads are almost identical however the parameters that govern takeoff performance (as mentioned above) are about 5-6% better in favour of the A35K.
morrisond wrote:
3. It will be just as cheap if not cheaper for Boeing to make F versions of the 787, 777X
Why would it be cheaper?
morrisond wrote:
I meant half baked in terms of not being able to lift higher density cargo in excess of an 777ERSF. If there only advantage is fuel economy that usually doesn't do a lot in the freighter market.
Who knows what the density is? Reuters claimed the A350 was 107t and the IAI claim 101 for the ERSF?
https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2011-02-28 ... in-Service

11.35hrs per day utilisation rate, seems to me that 5-6m/year isnt to be sniffed at. Its a straight trade between capital vs cash costs. The freighter market has traditionally been low utilisation which has been to the benefit of converted freighters but that might be changing. Alas an inherently more expensive (heavier) aircraft in the form of a 777XF doesn't solve that issue either.

morrisond wrote:
An 778XF with big wing and half generation newer engines could be pretty close in terms of fuel burn.

1. Why would a big wing make fuel burn lower? My truck is bogger than my kia and the fuel burn on my kia is significantly lower.
2. That newer engine isnt giving better performance to the 779X compared to the A35k so are you anticipating it being a different setup for the 777XF?

Fred

Do we know the performance of the 9X now? or is this based on a model?
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4289
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Tue Aug 17, 2021 9:37 pm

Opus99 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
morrisond wrote:
2. Yes a lighter plane but one that is most likely not as capable. You go much beyond 320T and the A350 will start to be hampered by its small wing just like the 77W was. With the probable lower cargo density of an 350F it will probably be taking off much closer to MTOW a lot more often than an 778XF.
No, actually not the case. The relative takeoff performance can be compared using 3 basic parameters in this case, weight, wing are and thrust. (Thrust to weight ratio)/(wing loading) giving an approximation for how fast it needs to go to take off and how quickly it can get to that speed. if we compare the 777X to the A35K with these categories at their current MTOW (351/5 vs 319t respectively) we see that the advantage albeit small is to the A350 (0.8% so within the margin of error). At these takeoff weights the A35k would marginally outrange the 777XF at identical payloads. When the MTOWs are increased to the anticipated 360t for the 777X and 323t for the A35k then the ranges at identical payloads are almost identical however the parameters that govern takeoff performance (as mentioned above) are about 5-6% better in favour of the A35K.
morrisond wrote:
3. It will be just as cheap if not cheaper for Boeing to make F versions of the 787, 777X
Why would it be cheaper?
morrisond wrote:
I meant half baked in terms of not being able to lift higher density cargo in excess of an 777ERSF. If there only advantage is fuel economy that usually doesn't do a lot in the freighter market.
Who knows what the density is? Reuters claimed the A350 was 107t and the IAI claim 101 for the ERSF?
https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2011-02-28 ... in-Service

11.35hrs per day utilisation rate, seems to me that 5-6m/year isnt to be sniffed at. Its a straight trade between capital vs cash costs. The freighter market has traditionally been low utilisation which has been to the benefit of converted freighters but that might be changing. Alas an inherently more expensive (heavier) aircraft in the form of a 777XF doesn't solve that issue either.

morrisond wrote:
An 778XF with big wing and half generation newer engines could be pretty close in terms of fuel burn.

1. Why would a big wing make fuel burn lower? My truck is bogger than my kia and the fuel burn on my kia is significantly lower.
2. That newer engine isnt giving better performance to the 779X compared to the A35k so are you anticipating it being a different setup for the 777XF?

Fred

Do we know the performance of the 9X now? or is this based on a model?


Boeing states that with 426 passengers and their bags on board it has a range of 7285nm with an OWE of 184t this gives performance (interms of fuel burn/pax/nm) no lower than the A35k in its spec configuration. Boeing know the 9X performance.

Fred
 
Ertro
Posts: 197
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2019 9:28 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Tue Aug 17, 2021 9:40 pm

morrisond wrote:
3. It will be just as cheap if not cheaper for Boeing to make F versions of the 787, 777X and even cheaper to reengine the 767F or 777F.


Isn't the economies of scale argument and having had time to mature the production line give big advantage to A350F in cost compared to 777XF at year 2025 when 777X might still be skyhigh expensive to produce.
 
Opus99
Topic Author
Posts: 2675
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Tue Aug 17, 2021 9:44 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
No, actually not the case. The relative takeoff performance can be compared using 3 basic parameters in this case, weight, wing are and thrust. (Thrust to weight ratio)/(wing loading) giving an approximation for how fast it needs to go to take off and how quickly it can get to that speed. if we compare the 777X to the A35K with these categories at their current MTOW (351/5 vs 319t respectively) we see that the advantage albeit small is to the A350 (0.8% so within the margin of error). At these takeoff weights the A35k would marginally outrange the 777XF at identical payloads. When the MTOWs are increased to the anticipated 360t for the 777X and 323t for the A35k then the ranges at identical payloads are almost identical however the parameters that govern takeoff performance (as mentioned above) are about 5-6% better in favour of the A35K.
Why would it be cheaper?
Who knows what the density is? Reuters claimed the A350 was 107t and the IAI claim 101 for the ERSF?
https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2011-02-28 ... in-Service

11.35hrs per day utilisation rate, seems to me that 5-6m/year isnt to be sniffed at. Its a straight trade between capital vs cash costs. The freighter market has traditionally been low utilisation which has been to the benefit of converted freighters but that might be changing. Alas an inherently more expensive (heavier) aircraft in the form of a 777XF doesn't solve that issue either.


1. Why would a big wing make fuel burn lower? My truck is bogger than my kia and the fuel burn on my kia is significantly lower.
2. That newer engine isnt giving better performance to the 779X compared to the A35k so are you anticipating it being a different setup for the 777XF?

Fred

Do we know the performance of the 9X now? or is this based on a model?


Boeing states that with 426 passengers and their bags on board it has a range of 7285nm with an OWE of 184t this gives performance (interms of fuel burn/pax/nm) no lower than the A35k in its spec configuration. Boeing know the 9X performance.

Fred

Okay so we don't know the performance of the 9X
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4289
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Tue Aug 17, 2021 9:47 pm

Opus99 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
Do we know the performance of the 9X now? or is this based on a model?


Boeing states that with 426 passengers and their bags on board it has a range of 7285nm with an OWE of 184t this gives performance (interms of fuel burn/pax/nm) no lower than the A35k in its spec configuration. Boeing know the 9X performance.

Fred

Okay so we don't know the performance of the 9X

Well I do because Boeing have stated it (I count them as a reasonable source) and have made it public and seeing as I can read I now know it also.

Fred
 
Opus99
Topic Author
Posts: 2675
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Tue Aug 17, 2021 9:54 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:

Boeing states that with 426 passengers and their bags on board it has a range of 7285nm with an OWE of 184t this gives performance (interms of fuel burn/pax/nm) no lower than the A35k in its spec configuration. Boeing know the 9X performance.

Fred

Okay so we don't know the performance of the 9X

Well I do because Boeing have stated it (I count them as a reasonable source) and have made it public and seeing as I can read I now know it also.

Fred

okay, we don't know the real world performance of the 9X... nobody said you can't read.

I'm not saying your statement is categorically wrong but let us see how the aircraft performs in the real world. I know most of you don't think the X is competitive to the 35K but it must have some merit
 
morrisond
Posts: 3497
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Tue Aug 17, 2021 9:57 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
morrisond wrote:
2. Yes a lighter plane but one that is most likely not as capable. You go much beyond 320T and the A350 will start to be hampered by its small wing just like the 77W was. With the probable lower cargo density of an 350F it will probably be taking off much closer to MTOW a lot more often than an 778XF.
No, actually not the case. The relative takeoff performance can be compared using 3 basic parameters in this case, weight, wing are and thrust. (Thrust to weight ratio)/(wing loading) giving an approximation for how fast it needs to go to take off and how quickly it can get to that speed. if we compare the 777X to the A35K with these categories at their current MTOW (351/5 vs 319t respectively) we see that the advantage albeit small is to the A350 (0.8% so within the margin of error). At these takeoff weights the A35k would marginally outrange the 777XF at identical payloads. When the MTOWs are increased to the anticipated 360t for the 777X and 323t for the A35k then the ranges at identical payloads are almost identical however the parameters that govern takeoff performance (as mentioned above) are about 5-6% better in favour of the A35K.
morrisond wrote:
3. It will be just as cheap if not cheaper for Boeing to make F versions of the 787, 777X
Why would it be cheaper?
morrisond wrote:
I meant half baked in terms of not being able to lift higher density cargo in excess of an 777ERSF. If there only advantage is fuel economy that usually doesn't do a lot in the freighter market.
Who knows what the density is? Reuters claimed the A350 was 107t and the IAI claim 101 for the ERSF?
https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2011-02-28 ... in-Service

11.35hrs per day utilisation rate, seems to me that 5-6m/year isnt to be sniffed at. Its a straight trade between capital vs cash costs. The freighter market has traditionally been low utilisation which has been to the benefit of converted freighters but that might be changing. Alas an inherently more expensive (heavier) aircraft in the form of a 777XF doesn't solve that issue either.

morrisond wrote:
An 778XF with big wing and half generation newer engines could be pretty close in terms of fuel burn.

1. Why would a big wing make fuel burn lower? My truck is bogger than my kia and the fuel burn on my kia is significantly lower.
2. That newer engine isnt giving better performance to the 779X compared to the A35k so are you anticipating it being a different setup for the 777XF?

Fred


I wasn't talking about takeoff performance - more about initial cruise altitude and at MTOW's far in excess of even 323T.

A longer more efficient wing. No one knows for sure the performance of the airplane yet - if you believe Boeing its better than the A351 - which I kind of doubt - but I bet its not far off.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4289
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Tue Aug 17, 2021 10:11 pm

morrisond wrote:
A longer more efficient wing.
the 777X has a higher spanwise loading.
morrisond wrote:
No one knows for sure the performance of the airplane yet -
of course no-one knows for sure, of almost anything. We take reasonable estimates and live with the margin for error. I would hope that Boeings margins for error are lower than mine and they have stated 7285nm with 426pax. If we cannot take the manufactures official figures as a reference that why on earth would we have any meaningful discussion based on what a journalist put in an article?

morrisond wrote:
if you believe Boeing its better than the A351
The difficulty comes in that if it burns less fuel then it cant be carrying the payload and if its carrying the payload it isn't burning less fuel.

morrisond wrote:
- which I kind of doubt - but I bet its not far off.
FWIW I don't think its far off either, I rekon it has an OWE of 184t and has similar fuel burn per pax on its spec mission. It just lacks payload capability.

Fred
 
Gremlinzzzz
Posts: 419
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:28 am

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Wed Aug 18, 2021 2:27 am

morrisond wrote:

1. You really think the fact that Airbus uses Panels vs having to cut a whole in a barrel is some huge cost advantage? Sorry I didn't realize that the 787 barrels have no other holes cut in them. I think you would be hard pressed to make the argument an A350 is less costly to build than an 787.


LNA is told doing so is problematic at best. The composite barrel construction of the 787 is said to be a challenge. Early in the program, replacing damaged barrel sections required replacing the entire barrel of the affected area. Airbus, using composite panels for the competing A350, only needs to produce a replacement panel, not an entire barrel. Derided at the time by Boeing, the Airbus approach may prove the smarter one at that. One Tier 1 supplier to both companies told LNA two years ago the panel approach was the preferred one.
https://leehamnews.com/2021/04/06/boeings-freighter-dominance-threatened/


If you go to the link below, at around the 8:35 mark, they talk about the difficulties in making a freighter from the 787.

https://leehamnews.com/2021/08/03/podcast-10-minutes-about-the-a350f-and-the-impact-on-boeing/

morrisond wrote:
2. Yes a lighter plane but one that is most likely not as capable. You go much beyond 320T and the A350 will start to be hampered by its small wing just like the 77W was. With the probable lower cargo density of an 350F it will probably be taking off much closer to MTOW a lot more often than an 778XF.
They are going to build a freighter that is optimized to what cargo companies want. They are not just throwing something out without consulting their would be customers. The main reason you have a shrink is because they (customers) do not want to have too much volume and that was discussed in the link below. It will be the same thing with Boeing.

https://leehamnews.com/2021/08/03/podcast-10-minutes-about-the-a350f-and-the-impact-on-boeing/

morrisond wrote:
3. It will be just as cheap if not cheaper for Boeing to make F versions of the 787, 777X and even cheaper to reengine the 767F or 777F.
I honestly do not know where this confidence is coming from. Boeing has lost a lot of engineers and from the look of things, they have an issue adjusting to the current regulatory environment. They also have not done anything at cost for eons.

I personally do not see Boeing re-engining the 767 or 777......those, at current, are non starters.

morrisond wrote:
I meant half baked in terms of not being able to lift higher density cargo in excess of an 777ERSF. If there only advantage is fuel economy that usually doesn't do a lot in the freighter market.
Many cargo companies are not flying max payload for any of this to be a problem. We have heard how they are filling planes for years before they hit their limit. If you match what the freight companies ask for at a vastly lower fuel burn, the difference over two decades may be worth it for these companies. All Airbus needs is a plane that has required payload and great economics.....their competition is not the 777, but the 777X.

morrisond wrote:
An 778XF with big wing and half generation newer engines could be pretty close in terms of fuel burn.
New generation engines, new wing, old heavy fuselage.
 
LX321
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:26 am

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Wed Aug 18, 2021 8:30 am

morrisond wrote:
Gremlinzzzz wrote:
morrisond wrote:

Airbus would be crazy not to do it - and the cost is not that large - but it won't be for Boeing either. There is almost no way that Boeing won't respond.

Where they will fall down is if they don't make it the best it can be and not optimize it so it can be as flexible as possible which is where A330F lost out to 777, and it never had a chance compared to 767 due to its wingspan issues.

A half baked solution won't cut it. Now something like Folding tips that allow it to fit in narrower gates, or a flip up nose to allow loading of long objects or single pilot operations from the get go - those are game changers in this space - but nothing that can't be replicated by Boeing.

They are not doing anything unique.

All they have to do is play to their strength and offer a product that is competitive. Their strengths are:

1) They have built the A350 in a manner which allows for a freighter in a much simple manner than the 787.
2) They are going to have a lighter plane regardless of what the competition does with the 777X, so the question is what is the payload going to look like? Going by Bjorn Ferhm from Leeham, they will get there after they have talked with clients. No reason to think that this has not happened, is not happening or will not happen.
3) This entire venture is going to be relatively cheap. The freighters are going to be built on the existing line, using the same tooling, on a product that has sold well.

You are not going to get folding wing tips like the 777X, you are not going to get the flip up nose like the 747. Not accomplishing any of these does not make it a half baked solution, neither does the demand that the solution come in with single pilot ops to be viable. All Airbus has to do is offer a product that has the range and the payload to go with the benefits that will come with a lighter jetliner.

If they get the payload and range requirements right, they will have done their job and it will be up to the market to decide whether operating a new type for cargo ops is worth it or not. This is what they have to worry about.


1. You really think the fact that Airbus uses Panels vs having to cut a whole in a barrel is some huge cost advantage? Sorry I didn't realize that the 787 barrels have no other holes cut in them. I think you would be hard pressed to make the argument an A350 is less costly to build than an 787.

2. Yes a lighter plane but one that is most likely not as capable. You go much beyond 320T and the A350 will start to be hampered by its small wing just like the 77W was. With the probable lower cargo density of an 350F it will probably be taking off much closer to MTOW a lot more often than an 778XF.

3. It will be just as cheap if not cheaper for Boeing to make F versions of the 787, 777X and even cheaper to reengine the 767F or 777F.

I meant half baked in terms of not being able to lift higher density cargo in excess of an 777ERSF. If there only advantage is fuel economy that usually doesn't do a lot in the freighter market.

An 778XF with big wing and half generation newer engines could be pretty close in terms of fuel burn.


Why do you repeat that the 350 is hampered by its small wing. What is the intention of that statement? Its inefficient or its small compared to what? A bigger plane?
 
morrisond
Posts: 3497
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Wed Aug 18, 2021 11:27 am

LX321 wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Gremlinzzzz wrote:
All they have to do is play to their strength and offer a product that is competitive. Their strengths are:

1) They have built the A350 in a manner which allows for a freighter in a much simple manner than the 787.
2) They are going to have a lighter plane regardless of what the competition does with the 777X, so the question is what is the payload going to look like? Going by Bjorn Ferhm from Leeham, they will get there after they have talked with clients. No reason to think that this has not happened, is not happening or will not happen.
3) This entire venture is going to be relatively cheap. The freighters are going to be built on the existing line, using the same tooling, on a product that has sold well.

You are not going to get folding wing tips like the 777X, you are not going to get the flip up nose like the 747. Not accomplishing any of these does not make it a half baked solution, neither does the demand that the solution come in with single pilot ops to be viable. All Airbus has to do is offer a product that has the range and the payload to go with the benefits that will come with a lighter jetliner.

If they get the payload and range requirements right, they will have done their job and it will be up to the market to decide whether operating a new type for cargo ops is worth it or not. This is what they have to worry about.


1. You really think the fact that Airbus uses Panels vs having to cut a whole in a barrel is some huge cost advantage? Sorry I didn't realize that the 787 barrels have no other holes cut in them. I think you would be hard pressed to make the argument an A350 is less costly to build than an 787.

2. Yes a lighter plane but one that is most likely not as capable. You go much beyond 320T and the A350 will start to be hampered by its small wing just like the 77W was. With the probable lower cargo density of an 350F it will probably be taking off much closer to MTOW a lot more often than an 778XF.

3. It will be just as cheap if not cheaper for Boeing to make F versions of the 787, 777X and even cheaper to reengine the 767F or 777F.

I meant half baked in terms of not being able to lift higher density cargo in excess of an 777ERSF. If there only advantage is fuel economy that usually doesn't do a lot in the freighter market.

An 778XF with big wing and half generation newer engines could be pretty close in terms of fuel burn.


Why do you repeat that the 350 is hampered by its small wing. What is the intention of that statement? Its inefficient or its small compared to what? A bigger plane?


If they grow it to 330T or 340T.
 
morrisond
Posts: 3497
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Wed Aug 18, 2021 11:50 am

Gremlinzzzz wrote:
morrisond wrote:

1. You really think the fact that Airbus uses Panels vs having to cut a whole in a barrel is some huge cost advantage? Sorry I didn't realize that the 787 barrels have no other holes cut in them. I think you would be hard pressed to make the argument an A350 is less costly to build than an 787.


LNA is told doing so is problematic at best. The composite barrel construction of the 787 is said to be a challenge. Early in the program, replacing damaged barrel sections required replacing the entire barrel of the affected area. Airbus, using composite panels for the competing A350, only needs to produce a replacement panel, not an entire barrel. Derided at the time by Boeing, the Airbus approach may prove the smarter one at that. One Tier 1 supplier to both companies told LNA two years ago the panel approach was the preferred one.
https://leehamnews.com/2021/04/06/boeings-freighter-dominance-threatened/


If you go to the link below, at around the 8:35 mark, they talk about the difficulties in making a freighter from the 787.

https://leehamnews.com/2021/08/03/podcast-10-minutes-about-the-a350f-and-the-impact-on-boeing/

morrisond wrote:
2. Yes a lighter plane but one that is most likely not as capable. You go much beyond 320T and the A350 will start to be hampered by its small wing just like the 77W was. With the probable lower cargo density of an 350F it will probably be taking off much closer to MTOW a lot more often than an 778XF.
They are going to build a freighter that is optimized to what cargo companies want. They are not just throwing something out without consulting their would be customers. The main reason you have a shrink is because they (customers) do not want to have too much volume and that was discussed in the link below. It will be the same thing with Boeing.

https://leehamnews.com/2021/08/03/podcast-10-minutes-about-the-a350f-and-the-impact-on-boeing/

morrisond wrote:
3. It will be just as cheap if not cheaper for Boeing to make F versions of the 787, 777X and even cheaper to reengine the 767F or 777F.
I honestly do not know where this confidence is coming from. Boeing has lost a lot of engineers and from the look of things, they have an issue adjusting to the current regulatory environment. They also have not done anything at cost for eons.

I personally do not see Boeing re-engining the 767 or 777......those, at current, are non starters.

morrisond wrote:
I meant half baked in terms of not being able to lift higher density cargo in excess of an 777ERSF. If there only advantage is fuel economy that usually doesn't do a lot in the freighter market.
Many cargo companies are not flying max payload for any of this to be a problem. We have heard how they are filling planes for years before they hit their limit. If you match what the freight companies ask for at a vastly lower fuel burn, the difference over two decades may be worth it for these companies. All Airbus needs is a plane that has required payload and great economics.....their competition is not the 777, but the 777X.

morrisond wrote:
An 778XF with big wing and half generation newer engines could be pretty close in terms of fuel burn.
New generation engines, new wing, old heavy fuselage.


I think Leeham is referring to converting an existing passenger 787 to a freighter.

Yes - I would agree - converting an already built 787 passenger model to a freighter could be more of a challenge - but again - Can they not cut holes in it like they already do? On a from scratch 787F - yes some more engineering needed in that section but not a showstopper. You can lay more tape where needed.

I guess you missed the whole section of the video from about 7:00 on they talked about the rumour that as long as orders or options are in place 767F and 777F can be produced way beyond the deadline.

If cargo companies are not hitting MTOW limits that often why then does the 77F continue to sell well and why was the 330F such a dud?

I want the 350F to succeed - but if Airbus wants to take a major part of this market - I don't think what is rumoured is the right approach. It won't be flexible enough. If this is what they end up producing - then fine but I think it will be a lot closer to 330F sales at 38 and very far away from 777F sales of 250 which could easily sell another 50+ frames before wind down of production.

It's Airbus's money and theres to waste. Personally I would spend the money they will spend on growing A351 abilities and basing it on that length frame to make it the largest most capable frame and not repeat the 330F mistake.

However it is going to take some major engineering to grow its MZFW. It's great passenger performance does come with trade-offs.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26982
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Wed Aug 18, 2021 12:09 pm

JetBuddy wrote:
I think many in this thread are completely missing the point.

- Airbus does not have a good foothold in the freighter market with current offerings. Meaning there are opportunities to be had.
- Engineering and producing an A350F is as far away from a "moonshot" you could possibly get in aviation.
- The aircraft will be produced with existing parts, at the existing production line, with existing tooling.

Ergo, it doesn't need a huge order book to launch. It's minimal investment, or as close to it as you can get.
Even if only a handful were sold, the investment is worth it.

Yet the thread starter suggested 50 orders were needed for launch, even knowing Airbus has not much standing in the freighter market, a freighter isn't a moonshot, and the existing production line can be used just like every other commercial freighter of the jet era.

I think the main point is we still know next to nothing about the A350F after months if not years of it being discussed and having media reports calling it a launch going mostly unchallenged. We have a proposed year for EIS and a lower limit on payload and that's about it. All kinds of projections are being tossed around which indicates Airbus hasn't said enough about the actual product to know what important properties such as size and payload/range will be. We know about as much about A350F as we did about NMA, which isn't much. We know engineers are working on something and customers are being engaged and that's about it.
 
Gremlinzzzz
Posts: 419
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:28 am

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Wed Aug 18, 2021 12:17 pm

morrisond wrote:
I think Leeham is referring to converting an existing passenger 787 to a freighter.

Yes - I would agree - converting an already built 787 passenger model to a freighter could be more of a challenge - but again - Can they not cut holes in it like they already do? On a from scratch 787F - yes some more engineering needed in that section but not a showstopper. You can lay more tape where needed.
Are they going to have two production methods? A new production method for a freighter that will be selling low volume? Are they going to go the distance to have this certified too?

morrisond wrote:
I guess you missed the whole section of the video from about 7:00 on they talked about the rumour that as long as orders or options are in place 767F and 777F can be produced way beyond the deadline.

I did not miss it. It just did not register that that was important in this discussion.

morrisond wrote:
If cargo companies are not hitting MTOW limits that often why then does the 77F continue to sell well and why was the 330F such a dud?
Airbus and Boeing are talking to freight companies as to what it is they want when it comes to freighters.

morrisond wrote:
I want the 350F to succeed - but if Airbus wants to take a major part of this market - I don't think what is rumoured is the right approach. It won't be flexible enough. If this is what they end up producing - then fine but I think it will be a lot closer to 330F sales at 38 and very far away from 777F sales of 250 which could easily sell another 50+ frames before wind down of production.
The only wide body freighters that meet requirement are the A350 and the 777X.

morrisond wrote:
It's Airbus's money and theres to waste. Personally I would spend the money they will spend on growing A351 abilities and basing it on that length frame to make it the largest most capable frame and not repeat the 330F mistake.

However it is going to take some major engineering to grow its MZFW. It's great passenger performance does come with trade-offs.
They are optimizing based on what the client needs are.
 
User avatar
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 1778
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Wed Aug 18, 2021 12:33 pm

Revelation wrote:
Yet the thread starter suggested 50 orders were needed for launch, even knowing Airbus has not much standing in the freighter market, a freighter isn't a moonshot, and the existing production line can be used just like every other commercial freighter of the jet era.


The quoted 50 seemed high to me, assuming it is a low cost derivative.

I guess it depends on who any orders are from. Say Air Greenland ordered one, that would be one sale. But if Fedex or UPS ordered 10, or 25, Airbus could reasonably anticipate the order growing to 100+ over time.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16432
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Wed Aug 18, 2021 12:57 pm

morrisond wrote:
If cargo companies are not hitting MTOW limits


They are not hitting MTOW limits, no idea where you get your ideas from. Freighters are normally more limited by MLW or MZFW, hardly ever MTOW.

Your persistent claims revolving around MTOW is puzzling, I think on the trunk freighter routes the longest leg is around 9-10 hrs. Very few if any freighters are flown long distance at maximum payload, they might go at maximum volume, however that payload is normally well below maximum mass.

Not sure where you get this idea that the 77F has some significant advantage over the A350F, both will likely have around the same payload mass, and the A350F a payload volume advantage. The A350F would burn less fuel than 77F, and be slightly faster trip times.

This is nothing we do not know from the passenger side. If you look at the passenger side of the same generation as the 77F, the 77L, no one has bought those for years.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26982
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Wed Aug 18, 2021 12:57 pm

JerseyFlyer wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Yet the thread starter suggested 50 orders were needed for launch, even knowing Airbus has not much standing in the freighter market, a freighter isn't a moonshot, and the existing production line can be used just like every other commercial freighter of the jet era.

The quoted 50 seemed high to me, assuming it is a low cost derivative.

No one knows enough to be able to say what it is, which is the point I'm making.

JerseyFlyer wrote:
I guess it depends on who any orders are from. Say Air Greenland ordered one, that would be one sale. But if Fedex or UPS ordered 10, or 25, Airbus could reasonably anticipate the order growing to 100+ over time.

We don't know if there are a small number of large orders, or a large number of small orders, or if there are any orders at all.
 
morrisond
Posts: 3497
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Wed Aug 18, 2021 1:17 pm

zeke wrote:
morrisond wrote:
If cargo companies are not hitting MTOW limits


They are not hitting MTOW limits, no idea where you get your ideas from. Freighters are normally more limited by MLW or MZFW, hardly ever MTOW.

Your persistent claims revolving around MTOW is puzzling, I think on the trunk freighter routes the longest leg is around 9-10 hrs. Very few if any freighters are flown long distance at maximum payload, they might go at maximum volume, however that payload is normally well below maximum mass.

Not sure where you get this idea that the 77F has some significant advantage over the A350F, both will likely have around the same payload mass, and the A350F a payload volume advantage. The A350F would burn less fuel than 77F, and be slightly faster trip times.

This is nothing we do not know from the passenger side. If you look at the passenger side of the same generation as the 77F, the 77L, no one has bought those for years.


I know they are limited more by MLW or MZFW. I was generalizing and using the wrong term.

The 77F's big advantage I assume would be sales price, just like the 777ERSF. 250 77F's sold.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16432
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Wed Aug 18, 2021 1:28 pm

morrisond wrote:
I know they are limited more by MLW or MZFW. I was generalizing and using the wrong term.


Well by some unknown co-incidence you have been using the wrong terms and the wrong numerical values at the same time.

morrisond wrote:
The 77F's big advantage I assume would be sales price, just like the 777ERSF. 250 77F's sold.


What is this pricing advantage ?

Going by the previous list prices I think they will be very similar, with the A350F then having the lower NPV as it is lighter, lower operating costs, slightly faster trip times, and lower maintenance.

From a manufacturing standpoint, once the 77X is in production is is going to more expensive to produce the 77F as they share very little in terms of structure or systems with the 77X. The A350F will have the same structure and systems as the A350-900/1000.
 
lifecomm
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2017 12:29 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Wed Aug 18, 2021 1:37 pm

I just don't see a 350F - maybe when they re-engine. Maybe.

Just one data point: I count 150-ish 300Fs with UPS, FedEx & DHL These planes are all getting up in age - with an average age well over 20 years. Why take the risk and pay the price on some new freighter? I see one choice for these planes: 767-300Fs. I don't even see a 767-400F. For every other shipper: the same advice and/or 767-300BCF, 777F & 747-8Fs: buy them now at fire-sale prices before the lines end.

Can you imagine the deal you could get on 10 of any one of these four freighters? I bet FedEx orders 100 more 767-300Fs. Talk about a deal. Heck, who knows, maybe they order 200 and use them to replace their aging 757 fleet - are they really almost 30 years old?!

Just my opinion....
 
Opus99
Topic Author
Posts: 2675
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Wed Aug 18, 2021 1:52 pm

zeke wrote:
morrisond wrote:
I know they are limited more by MLW or MZFW. I was generalizing and using the wrong term.


Well by some unknown co-incidence you have been using the wrong terms and the wrong numerical values at the same time.

morrisond wrote:
The 77F's big advantage I assume would be sales price, just like the 777ERSF. 250 77F's sold.


What is this pricing advantage ?

Going by the previous list prices I think they will be very similar, with the A350F then having the lower NPV as it is lighter, lower operating costs, slightly faster trip times, and lower maintenance.

From a manufacturing standpoint, once the 77X is in production is is going to more expensive to produce the 77F as they share very little in terms of structure or systems with the 77X. The A350F will have the same structure and systems as the A350-900/1000.

But at the same time because of everything the 350F has over the 777F boeing will have to discount it even more to attract sales, yes the list prices will be similar but what customers pay will be much much more reduced. Think of what they did with the 300ER to get more sales out of it. United had the 1000 on order, moved it to the 900 and took 300ERs, that is the pricing advantage he's talking about. That united switch had nothing to do with performance because the 35K is obviously significantly better than the 300ER but the price was low enough for the whole deal to swing in favour of the 300ER, taking into consideration delivery lead times as well


So, Boeing sales team is smart i think, they no longer have the most advanced freighter offering, that will be the 350F and with that, they must price accordingly and that will be a problem for the 350F. regardless i still think the business case is sound and it will sell strongly
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16432
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Wed Aug 18, 2021 2:15 pm

Opus99 wrote:
So, Boeing sales team is smart i think, they no longer have the most advanced freighter offering, that will be the 350F and with that, they must price accordingly and that will be a problem for the 350F. regardless i still think the business case is sound and it will sell strongly


How exactly is that a problem for the A35F if the 77F has to be sold today at fire sale prices ?

It will mean the nail in the coffin for the 77XF as it prices it out of the market, and the emission standards have put the nail in the coffin for the 77F. It will also provide little in terms of cash reserves to Boeing to develop anything new.

male ulciscitur dedecus sibi illatum qui amputat nasum suum
 
Opus99
Topic Author
Posts: 2675
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Wed Aug 18, 2021 2:30 pm

zeke wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
So, Boeing sales team is smart i think, they no longer have the most advanced freighter offering, that will be the 350F and with that, they must price accordingly and that will be a problem for the 350F. regardless i still think the business case is sound and it will sell strongly


How exactly is that a problem for the A35F if the 77F has to be sold today at fire sale prices ?

It will mean the nail in the coffin for the 77XF as it prices it out of the market, and the emission standards have put the nail in the coffin for the 77F. It will also provide little in terms of cash reserves to Boeing to develop anything new.

male ulciscitur dedecus sibi illatum qui amputat nasum suum

Boeing did the same thing for the 300ER, i'm pretty sure they'll do it for the F. If i'm understanding correctly the XF will be priced out but 350F won't be priced out? i'm not saying this will last forever but it will be something the 350F will have to deal with. my God, relax.

every end of the line program is discounted heavily.

we have even seen it with the 300ER with united, BA, QR, Swiss, etc

we have seen it with the 330CEO from aer lingus and iberia Customers always take advantage of end of line prices. and these examples are with the passenger market where efficiency drive is more potent than cargo. any end of line opportunity is one less jet that a new generation can sell, at that point but not everyone will do it.

now that will not last forever, so it won't hurt the business case or overall of the 350F like i said, but of course initially it will be something it will have to deal with. so yes its new and super efficient, it won't have the market completely to itself initially is my point. I don't know what is so controversial about that
 
Gremlinzzzz
Posts: 419
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:28 am

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Wed Aug 18, 2021 2:43 pm

Opus99 wrote:
zeke wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
So, Boeing sales team is smart i think, they no longer have the most advanced freighter offering, that will be the 350F and with that, they must price accordingly and that will be a problem for the 350F. regardless i still think the business case is sound and it will sell strongly


How exactly is that a problem for the A35F if the 77F has to be sold today at fire sale prices ?

It will mean the nail in the coffin for the 77XF as it prices it out of the market, and the emission standards have put the nail in the coffin for the 77F. It will also provide little in terms of cash reserves to Boeing to develop anything new.

male ulciscitur dedecus sibi illatum qui amputat nasum suum

Boeing did the same thing for the 300ER, i'm pretty sure they'll do it for the F. If i'm understanding correctly the XF will be priced out but 350F won't be priced out? i'm not saying this will last forever but it will be something the 350F will have to deal with. my God, relax.

every end of the line program is discounted heavily.

we have even seen it with the 300ER with united, BA, QR, Swiss, etc

we have seen it with the 330CEO from aer lingus and iberia Customers always take advantage of end of line prices. and these examples are with the passenger market where efficiency drive is more potent than cargo. any end of line opportunity is one less jet that a new generation can sell, at that point but not everyone will do it.

now that will not last forever, so it won't hurt the business case or overall of the 350F like i said, but of course initially it will be something it will have to deal with. so yes its new and super efficient, it won't have the market completely to itself initially is my point. I don't know what is so controversial about that
He is right that it would be a silly move on Boeing's part. How many programs do they have that are generating cash........not in forward loss position?

The aim of a business is to make money, and re-invest some of that money into future products.
 
Opus99
Topic Author
Posts: 2675
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Wed Aug 18, 2021 3:04 pm

Gremlinzzzz wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
zeke wrote:

How exactly is that a problem for the A35F if the 77F has to be sold today at fire sale prices ?

It will mean the nail in the coffin for the 77XF as it prices it out of the market, and the emission standards have put the nail in the coffin for the 77F. It will also provide little in terms of cash reserves to Boeing to develop anything new.

male ulciscitur dedecus sibi illatum qui amputat nasum suum

Boeing did the same thing for the 300ER, i'm pretty sure they'll do it for the F. If i'm understanding correctly the XF will be priced out but 350F won't be priced out? i'm not saying this will last forever but it will be something the 350F will have to deal with. my God, relax.

every end of the line program is discounted heavily.

we have even seen it with the 300ER with united, BA, QR, Swiss, etc

we have seen it with the 330CEO from aer lingus and iberia Customers always take advantage of end of line prices. and these examples are with the passenger market where efficiency drive is more potent than cargo. any end of line opportunity is one less jet that a new generation can sell, at that point but not everyone will do it.

now that will not last forever, so it won't hurt the business case or overall of the 350F like i said, but of course initially it will be something it will have to deal with. so yes its new and super efficient, it won't have the market completely to itself initially is my point. I don't know what is so controversial about that
He is right that it would be a silly move on Boeing's part. How many programs do they have that are generating cash........not in forward loss position?

The aim of a business is to make money, and re-invest some of that money into future products.

i didn't say they should sell them at a loss. will their margin reduce? of course but until they bring the XF to market, there is nothing else they can do. that or no sale at all, hows that for smart business. even when they bring the XF to market, customers will still remain interested in the F because they know it will be much cheaper and will do the job for them. As we can see, MAX is picking up again and the small deliveries they've done have allowed them to swing back into slight profitability. Boeing will be fine on cash, dont worry.

In the grand scheme of thins like i have said 350F IMO will still do well, i don't know what the fuss is about
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4289
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Wed Aug 18, 2021 3:10 pm

morrisond wrote:
LX321 wrote:
morrisond wrote:

1. You really think the fact that Airbus uses Panels vs having to cut a whole in a barrel is some huge cost advantage? Sorry I didn't realize that the 787 barrels have no other holes cut in them. I think you would be hard pressed to make the argument an A350 is less costly to build than an 787.

2. Yes a lighter plane but one that is most likely not as capable. You go much beyond 320T and the A350 will start to be hampered by its small wing just like the 77W was. With the probable lower cargo density of an 350F it will probably be taking off much closer to MTOW a lot more often than an 778XF.

3. It will be just as cheap if not cheaper for Boeing to make F versions of the 787, 777X and even cheaper to reengine the 767F or 777F.

I meant half baked in terms of not being able to lift higher density cargo in excess of an 777ERSF. If there only advantage is fuel economy that usually doesn't do a lot in the freighter market.

An 778XF with big wing and half generation newer engines could be pretty close in terms of fuel burn.


Why do you repeat that the 350 is hampered by its small wing. What is the intention of that statement? Its inefficient or its small compared to what? A bigger plane?


If they grow it to 330T or 340T.

And the same fete befalls the 777x at 380t but I fail to see why either is relevant? At equal payload the range performance is basically equal.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
amdiesen
Posts: 222
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 2:27 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Wed Aug 18, 2021 3:57 pm

given equal factors, the rational choice is to take the option with less risk*

..................
One might consider that we have an understanding of the range of specifications. The final specs have yet to be locked because a general cargo carrier will want an a350-925f shrink, a mixed cargo carrier will want an a350-950f, and an express carrier will want a b773ersf. Airbus will want simplicity in design and manufacturing. Additionally, a carrier that wants to finance/operate/maintain a long-term freighter asset for profit has yet to place an order

A350-900 4-bogieLG: 66.8m, 650m3, 85mt
A350-925 6-bogieLG: 67.4m, 665m3, x > 95mt
A350-950 6-bogieLG: 70.1m, 730m3, x > 90mt
A350-1000 6-bogieLG: 73.8m, 825m3, 95mt
bay = ~.6m ^ 2'

"An A350-900 freighter was first mentioned in 2007, offering a similar capacity to the MD-11F with a range of 9,250 km (4,990 nmi)"

"The A350-900 has four-wheel bogies in a 4.1 m (13 ft) long bay. The higher weight variant, the A350-1000 uses a six-wheel bogie, with a 4.7 m (15 ft) undercarriage bay."

"The A350-1000 has ... a slightly larger wing than the −800/900 models with trailing-edge extension increasing its area by 4%....The Rolls-Royce Trent XWB engine's thrust is augmented to 97,000 lbf (430 kN). "

The current probability that a dedicated b787 freighter will be ordered/delivered is de minimis. What would a new build b787 freighter economically offer over a b789p2f. These probabilities change based on: existence and chosen length of the a350f, existence of: b764f &/^ nmaf

Esmeralda's tea leaves reflect that 1) Calhoun's preference/objective for Boeing's wb freighter will be an nmaf that fits in a d-gate. 2) Airbus is simply supporting the supply chain for Delta's a330neo order as clever European AEs craft a solution between the a321neo and the a350neo under non-disclosure agreements... but why would you need Esmeralda to tell/bill you for that?

sources
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A350
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1b-0Fz1 ... sp=sharing

observation: non-purchase price factors are given disproportionate weight on anet.
observation: 50 lot WB orders are bandied about significantly more here on anet than IRL
datum: fyi, divine right does not extend to 'bridge production', at least until AAB becomes the CEO of an airframer

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 8herveg, a320fan, Baidu [Spider], bmagee, bpatus297, BrianDromey, DALCE, dimsteen, FromCDGtoSYD, Google Adsense [Bot], iRISH251, JayinKitsap, kyrone, Majestic-12 [Bot], Noshow, qf789, RizzlyBear7, shindig31, SpoonNZ, ss31, stackelberg, tokolosh, Tommo4828, trees, VS4ever, wimdemeester, wjcandee and 227 guests

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