Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
morrisond
Posts: 3497
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Fri Aug 20, 2021 6:51 pm

2175301 wrote:
LX321 wrote:
I recommend watching the video (perhaps the link is already posted here) of CEO Faury. The 350F is coming and no it is certainly beyond paper plane status. Otherwise, Faurys statement of an EIS in 2025 would be a public lie.
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2021/07/29/a ... faury.html


I disagree on how much emphasis you are putting in a claimed EIS date.

The history of both Airbus and Boeing on EIS dates should tell you that it at best a hope.

The B787 had an initial Announced EIS Date. Was missed by many years.

The A350 initial announced concept with an EIS was botched so bad that they went back to the drawing board and came up with an entirely new A350 Concept with a new EIS. That was missed as well.

The A380 had an initial EIS, and was missed by years.

The A380F had an initial EIS, and was never produced even though it had a sizable number of orders.

The B77X had an intial EIS, and is currently years late.

If there is one thing I am reasonably sure of... That its most likely that the claimed EIS date for the A350F is likely wrong as well. That does not make it a lie. It's just a projection.

I have not posted in this thread in a long time. My last post said something like I wish Airbus the best with the A350F. However, I'm not sure that it will work out economically. Time will tell. Note that I'm also not sure that an B77X-F will work out economically as well. I believe that both the A350F and B77XF are gambles. But, business is about taking educated gambles.

Have a great day,


I would agree with all this.

The only way they make 2025 EIS is if 350F is not a custom length, which would not be the craziest idea.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4287
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Fri Aug 20, 2021 7:27 pm

morrisond wrote:
jagraham wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
Indeed, it’s about whether the payload-range with an increased OWE and ‘specific range’ increase in can still be competitive given the relatively low utilisation skewing costs towards reduced capital vs reduced fuel burn compared to the pax variant. Both the 77XF and the A350F share this self same problem to a degree but the carrot here is that the next generation of wide bodies will suffer even worse with this and may well be completely uncompetitive giving the ‘victor’ from this a long standing role in this market.

In my view Boeing should have just slapped the Ge9x on the 77W/L/F and called it a day. The A350F would not compete with that IMHO.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Im a little late, but I believe the new 77X wing is what allowed the ~10% thrust reduction.

They did run the GE9X to a thrust level well above the GE90-115 level, so conceivably thrust could be bumped up to 110K or 115K to support the old planes.

A strong case could be made for a 777 Longer Range family with 110K engines and 10% less fuel capacity; about the same range for 10% less. Would it have been competitive versus the A359 and especially the A35J? But pax airplanes is a different question

Certainly freighters are much more capex sensitive; just attaching the new engine to the old airframe would have saved a lot of money. But would the freighter survive alone? Especially versus a viable A35J derived freighter? Because the old airframe with the new engines would be a wash against the A350 lineup at best.

But on the other hand, would the A350F survive against the pricing Boeing could provide with a 777MAX lineup? My guess is that Boeing didn't think so; otherwise they should have done a 777MAX and waited on a new wing. But I could be wrong . . . comments welcome.


77F has Engines Derated to 110K and Ge9x has 110K at takeoff. It should not be much of an issue.

That passed me by to be honest. I thought it was still at 105klb.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
morrisond
Posts: 3497
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Fri Aug 20, 2021 9:05 pm

More info from an Aviation Week article from today - which did not add much except for this tidbit

https://informamarkets.turtl.co/story/a ... nse/page/2

"Additional pressure to refresh the product line comes from future International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) emissions standards adopted in 2017, which neither the existing 767-300ERF nor the 777-200LR-based 777F will meet by the legislation’s effective date of 2028. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Boeing has applied for a deadline extension until 2038 applicable to the 767F because of the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. But the authority pointed to an existing FAA mechanism that could be used to apply for an extension until 2038."

No idea why it could not apply to 777F either - but I would assume Boeing needs the Volume to make the X viable so it is not bothering to apply as it intends to build an 778xF.
 
Noshow
Posts: 2830
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Fri Aug 20, 2021 9:11 pm

The 767 line will be available due to the tanker. Keeping the freighter in parallel would make sense. And it is much needed business for Everett.
 
morrisond
Posts: 3497
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Fri Aug 20, 2021 9:27 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
morrisond wrote:
jagraham wrote:

Im a little late, but I believe the new 77X wing is what allowed the ~10% thrust reduction.

They did run the GE9X to a thrust level well above the GE90-115 level, so conceivably thrust could be bumped up to 110K or 115K to support the old planes.

A strong case could be made for a 777 Longer Range family with 110K engines and 10% less fuel capacity; about the same range for 10% less. Would it have been competitive versus the A359 and especially the A35J? But pax airplanes is a different question

Certainly freighters are much more capex sensitive; just attaching the new engine to the old airframe would have saved a lot of money. But would the freighter survive alone? Especially versus a viable A35J derived freighter? Because the old airframe with the new engines would be a wash against the A350 lineup at best.

But on the other hand, would the A350F survive against the pricing Boeing could provide with a 777MAX lineup? My guess is that Boeing didn't think so; otherwise they should have done a 777MAX and waited on a new wing. But I could be wrong . . . comments welcome.


77F has Engines Derated to 110K and Ge9x has 110K at takeoff. It should not be much of an issue.

That passed me by to be honest. I thought it was still at 105klb.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


110K at takeoff, 103.5K Continuous vs XWB-97 97K at Takeoff, 83.1K Continuous - Albeit at a difference in weight of 9,630Kg vs 7,550KG which makes more sense when you see the continuous thrust difference. 27.5% more weight for 24.5% more thrust. An Ge90-115 is 8,762KG - so an 777X gains about 1,736 KG from the new Engines.

https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/defaul ... %20XWB.pdf

https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guid ... N_Rev0.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_GE90
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16423
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sat Aug 21, 2021 3:57 am

morrisond wrote:
A 777ERSF should still be able load almost 100T of fuel in addition to 101T of payload - that is long range for a freighter and right in the same ballpark of what an A350F should be able to lift to the same range - albeit probably burning 15-20% less fuel.


Anyone could load even more fuel than 100t in a 777WP2F, however with 100t of payload they will not be able to legally takeoff with 100t or more fuel.
 
User avatar
Chipmunk1973
Posts: 449
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2016 10:23 am

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sat Aug 21, 2021 4:14 am

Just a couple or few general questions about cargo aircraft.

I understand the concept of containers such as the LD3. But what about pallets used in cargo planes? Is there a standard for sizes used and what would be the more common sizes?

Lastly, how are pallets loaded (and unloaded). I’ve seen LD3s loaded by conveyor as the belly is moderately close to the ground. I’d imagine with the main deck being somewhat higher, something like a scissor lift would be used?

Thanks in advance.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16423
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sat Aug 21, 2021 4:25 am

Chipmunk1973 wrote:
Just a couple or few general questions about cargo aircraft.

I understand the concept of containers such as the LD3. But what about pallets used in cargo planes? Is there a standard for sizes used and what would be the more common sizes?

Lastly, how are pallets loaded (and unloaded). I’ve seen LD3s loaded by conveyor as the belly is moderately close to the ground. I’d imagine with the main deck being somewhat higher, something like a scissor lift would be used?

Thanks in advance.


PMC are the more common pallets, they are 96 inches x 125 inches. Usually get around 6 tonnes per pallet. They are loaded the same way as LD3s, a loader takes them from the ground equipment to the door height with a scissor lift mechanism, then power rollers on the loader normally roll them into the aircraft, and then power rollers in the cargo hold normally move them within the cargo hold.

https://www.cathaypacificcargo.com/en-u ... allet.aspx
 
Daysleeper
Posts: 743
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sat Aug 21, 2021 11:05 am

morrisond wrote:
More info from an Aviation Week article from today - which did not add much except for this tidbit

https://informamarkets.turtl.co/story/a ... nse/page/2

"Additional pressure to refresh the product line comes from future International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) emissions standards adopted in 2017, which neither the existing 767-300ERF nor the 777-200LR-based 777F will meet by the legislation’s effective date of 2028. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Boeing has applied for a deadline extension until 2038 applicable to the 767F because of the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. But the authority pointed to an existing FAA mechanism that could be used to apply for an extension until 2038."

No idea why it could not apply to 777F either - but I would assume Boeing needs the Volume to make the X viable so it is not bothering to apply as it intends to build an 778xF.


I have spent a fair amount of time now trawling though the web trying to find definitive answers regarding the 2028 emissions standards relating to both new build aircraft and possible future conversions. The only thing I can say for sure is that its far from settled. There are numerous court cases going back and forth with at least 11 states wanting even more stringent regulation than what has already been implemented (Reuters article)

Boeings stance is a little more difficult to judge this article seems to imply that they are behind the new standards and are attempting to stop from them becoming more stringent as a result of some states challenging the EPA. I have not managed to find anything concrete regarding an extension to 2038 for the 767F, which doesn’t mean that they are not trying to get an extension, but I suspect given that they are having to go to court just to defend the current 2028 deadline its not going to be a simple task. It is also worth noting that a lot of this seems to be tied to politics, and with the Biden\Harris administration being much more environmentally conscious, it may make any extension much more complex.

As a final note, everything I have read so far on the subject relates to the USA and EPA – not the global ICAO standards. I would assume that if there an extension then it is going to apply to aircraft operating within the US only. Perhaps this is why they are only perusing an extension on the 767F, as many of them could be used to serve the just US market. However, a 777F would be crippled without being able to operate international routes.
 
morrisond
Posts: 3497
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sat Aug 21, 2021 11:35 am

zeke wrote:
morrisond wrote:
A 777ERSF should still be able load almost 100T of fuel in addition to 101T of payload - that is long range for a freighter and right in the same ballpark of what an A350F should be able to lift to the same range - albeit probably burning 15-20% less fuel.


Anyone could load even more fuel than 100t in a 777WP2F, however with 100t of payload they will not be able to legally takeoff with 100t or more fuel.


You will notice I said "almost 100T of fuel".

777ERSF BIG TWIN Brochure. https://www.iai.co.il/drupal/sites/defa ... ochure.pdf

MZFW 253,105KG
MSP 100,698KG
MTOW 351,534KG
MTW 352,441KG

Leaving 98,429 KG for fuel at takeoff (99,366 KG before taxi) - that's pretty close to almost 100T of fuel last time I checked.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16423
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sat Aug 21, 2021 12:24 pm

How does any of that relate to the A35F ?
 
morrisond
Posts: 3497
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sat Aug 21, 2021 12:47 pm

zeke wrote:
How does any of that relate to the A35F ?



That the 350F is going to have really tough competition with the 777ERSF. It sounds like the 350F will be able to lift about the same about as far for probably somewhere around 2-3x the price.

Companies like Amazon would seem to be the biggest potential customer but so far they are liking conversions and ignoring fuel burn.

The 350F does not seem to doing anything unique.

I still think the best way forward is to boost its Capabilities to allow a 950F with 115-120T of lift and an 1100 passenger model. Nobody has yet convinced me that is not the best way forward, however that may necessitate a new engine or more thrust. The GE9X at least on continuous thrust seems to be in a different class than the XWB-97.
 
Daysleeper
Posts: 743
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sat Aug 21, 2021 2:11 pm

morrisond wrote:

That the 350F is going to have really tough competition with the 777ERSF. It sounds like the 350F will be able to lift about the same about as far for probably somewhere around 2-3x the price.


While I agree that the ERSF would be a problem for the A350F despite searching I have yet to find any definitive answer to if it is able to enter service post 2028. You have stated numerous times that it will be exempt from regulation and despite my asking for you to share your source multiple times you have yet to do so.

Furthermore, any potential EPA exemption will only cover operation within the USA. An ERF which is unable to operate internationally without penalty is going to be about as useful as a chocolate tea pot.

Please, if as you constantly state the ERF is going to be exempt from the ICAO regulations then post your source. Otherwise stop stating it.

morrisond wrote:
Companies like Amazon would seem to be the biggest potential customer but so far they are liking conversions and ignoring fuel burn.


Amazon tends to ship domestic only, they have little reason for international freight as they have warehouses around the globe.
morrisond wrote:
The 350F does not seem to doing anything unique.


Again, they do not need to be unique simply offering an alternative to the 777F which is both regulation compliant and a lot more efficient should be enough.
 
User avatar
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 1776
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sat Aug 21, 2021 2:17 pm

If conversions of old 77Ws are sufficient to defeat a new Airbus offering, are they not also sufficient to defeat a new Boeing offering (778F) as well?
 
morrisond
Posts: 3497
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sat Aug 21, 2021 3:09 pm

Daysleeper wrote:
morrisond wrote:

That the 350F is going to have really tough competition with the 777ERSF. It sounds like the 350F will be able to lift about the same about as far for probably somewhere around 2-3x the price.


While I agree that the ERSF would be a problem for the A350F despite searching I have yet to find any definitive answer to if it is able to enter service post 2028. You have stated numerous times that it will be exempt from regulation and despite my asking for you to share your source multiple times you have yet to do so.

Furthermore, any potential EPA exemption will only cover operation within the USA. An ERF which is unable to operate internationally without penalty is going to be about as useful as a chocolate tea pot.

Please, if as you constantly state the ERF is going to be exempt from the ICAO regulations then post your source. Otherwise stop stating it.

morrisond wrote:
Companies like Amazon would seem to be the biggest potential customer but so far they are liking conversions and ignoring fuel burn.


Amazon tends to ship domestic only, they have little reason for international freight as they have warehouses around the globe.
morrisond wrote:
The 350F does not seem to doing anything unique.


Again, they do not need to be unique simply offering an alternative to the 777F which is both regulation compliant and a lot more efficient should be enough.


I don't think you ever actually asked me for a specific source until now. But if the 77W is allowed to fly after 2028(and it will) why would a 777ERSF not be able to?

The standard only applies to newly delivered aircraft. I can't find anything that says it applies to conversions. So therefore it does not apply - unless you can find something that says it does. That is common practise in the industry. Converting an airplane does not make it new.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16423
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sat Aug 21, 2021 3:25 pm

JerseyFlyer wrote:
If conversions of old 77Ws are sufficient to defeat a new Airbus offering, are they not also sufficient to defeat a new Boeing offering (778F) as well?


If you want a pickup truck, do you go out and buy a used SUV, take it to to a shop, get them to modify it into a pickup, or would you just go to a dealership and lease a new SUV ? The elephant in the room is the lack of 747BCF and 747-400BDSF around despite the bargain basement price purchase a 744. if conversion economics were already compelling business decisions for airlines, the 77L would not have sold.

Airlines and financiers are still interested in efficiency, it is a lot easier to finance a new aircraft than a converted passenger aircraft. It is more likely that a converted frame would need to be paid from cash, where a new aircraft via some leasing arrangement. That cash that is tied up in that frame undergoing conversion is generating no income, where airlines only start paying for a new frame when they take delivery.

The new aircraft option therefore would require less cash upfront from the airline, they can start working it as soon as they take delivery, greater efficiency on a per kg/volume basis, lower maintenance, faster trip times, and more range. Airbus should be able to produce new A35Fs faster than anyone can convert a 77W.
 
Chaostheory
Posts: 1186
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:09 am

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sat Aug 21, 2021 3:33 pm

morrisond wrote:

The standard only applies to newly delivered aircraft. I can't find anything that says it applies to conversions. So therefore it does not apply - unless you can find something that says it does. That is common practise in the industry. Converting an airplane does not make it new.


We seem to be repeating the same debates ad infintum. I and member smartplane? had these same arguments with newbepilot and co regarding the CORSIA rules many years ago. Everyone laughed then. Heck, my airline bought the 787 with GE engines at the time solely because it had the lowest emissions and the writing was on the wall that is/was the way Europe and the world is heading.

What you're continuously failing to take into account is how authorities are going to tax older gen aircraft into oblivion on the basis of their emissions and noise pollution. Unless operators are willing to pay the higher fees levied with conversions, the models you mention are going to be relegated to regional work. That's fine for the narrowbody types and the smaller widebodys, but when you're at the 777/350 size you're going to lose a lot of flexibility.

Operators love flexibility. It's why the 330, 787 and 777 sold so well.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26981
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sat Aug 21, 2021 3:41 pm

zeke wrote:
JerseyFlyer wrote:
If conversions of old 77Ws are sufficient to defeat a new Airbus offering, are they not also sufficient to defeat a new Boeing offering (778F) as well?

If you want a pickup truck, do you go out and buy a used SUV, take it to to a shop, get them to modify it into a pickup, or would you just go to a dealership and lease a new SUV ? The elephant in the room is the lack of 747BCF and 747-400BDSF around despite the bargain basement price purchase a 744. if conversion economics were already compelling business decisions for airlines, the 77L would not have sold.

Airlines and financiers are still interested in efficiency, it is a lot easier to finance a new aircraft than a converted passenger aircraft. It is more likely that a converted frame would need to be paid from cash, where a new aircraft via some leasing arrangement. That cash that is tied up in that frame undergoing conversion is generating no income, where airlines only start paying for a new frame when they take delivery.

The new aircraft option therefore would require less cash upfront from the airline, they can start working it as soon as they take delivery, greater efficiency on a per kg/volume basis, lower maintenance, faster trip times, and more range. Airbus should be able to produce new A35Fs faster than anyone can convert a 77W.

I think there's a counter point of view provided by Amazon Air, it went with 767F conversions at a time when Boeing still had plenty of capacity to produce factory fresh 767Fs, only recently has production become a bottleneck as FX, UPS and USAF orders build up. Similar was true of FX when they set up their own 757 conversion lines rather than asking Airbus to do an A321F for them. The 77WF is being financed by GECAS so it doesn't seem financiers are staying away from conversions. Financiers have lots of aging 77Ws that need new tasks, a P2F conversion is a godsend to them.

Not saying what you are saying is false, am saying there are different market niches. As above, Airbus thinks it has enough business for a factory fresh freighter, looking forward to hearing more about who will be making commitments to the program. Yet I think conversions will set a ceiling on market acceptance of both A and B new freighters. Charge too much for new and used looks more attractive. Financing is just one component of cost.
 
amdiesen
Posts: 222
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 2:27 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sat Aug 21, 2021 4:35 pm

JerseyFlyer wrote:
If conversions of old 77Ws are sufficient to defeat a new Airbus offering, are they not also sufficient to defeat a new Boeing offering (778F) as well?


aggressively-in-speed offering/converting b772LR, which is powered and structurally similar to the b772f, to the most likely a359f customers can foil the business thesis.
The argument is that Boeing should offer its own conversion program, in addition to IAI.
A properly, density positioned, a350f may defeat the b778f.
the b773ersf markets to a segment of carriers that appreciates
.economics, ~1/3 of the price of the new build for a frame that has 1/2 the expected economic life, without what spacepope articulates as the newbuild's 'maintenance holiday'
.'punting' strategy, buying time until... (1)re-balance the fleet and make room for the b779p(Emirates), (2) financing costs improve
.mitigates financing costs, esp. mixed carriers

your right is weakens the b777xf business case as FedEx, for example, should be a conversion buyer
.14 of the 31 carriers that buy new are married to the b777, 2-4 carriers are waning/not_growing/notN_the_market
.the a359f is at a sales advantage for carriers with significant b748fs

yes there are pros/cons to the disruption, but the b777xf would fare better head-to-head later in time.
.early conversions will economically retire out before the sunset of the b777xf production cycle

Respecting IAIs independent efforts, Boeing converting the b772LRs supports a strategic freighter objective, the conversion of 773s supports the b777x passenger program
 
morrisond
Posts: 3497
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sat Aug 21, 2021 4:39 pm

Chaostheory wrote:
morrisond wrote:

The standard only applies to newly delivered aircraft. I can't find anything that says it applies to conversions. So therefore it does not apply - unless you can find something that says it does. That is common practise in the industry. Converting an airplane does not make it new.


We seem to be repeating the same debates ad infintum. I and member smartplane? had these same arguments with newbepilot and co regarding the CORSIA rules many years ago. Everyone laughed then. Heck, my airline bought the 787 with GE engines at the time solely because it had the lowest emissions and the writing was on the wall that is/was the way Europe and the world is heading.

What you're continuously failing to take into account is how authorities are going to tax older gen aircraft into oblivion on the basis of their emissions and noise pollution. Unless operators are willing to pay the higher fees levied with conversions, the models you mention are going to be relegated to regional work. That's fine for the narrowbody types and the smaller widebodys, but when you're at the 777/350 size you're going to lose a lot of flexibility.

Operators love flexibility. It's why the 330, 787 and 777 sold so well.


Is the 777 flexible or not? In one sentence you say its not and the next it is.

I fully expect Boeing to launch compliant 787(or 767 Re-engine) and 777X solutions Freighter solutions in time for the expected new regs. The 350F won't be the only solution and at this point it seems like it will be optimized as a package freighter. Boeing will not abandon the market.

That just seems short sighted to me, Airbus seems to be really limiting A350 potential sales. Just like Boeing was nuts to do the 777X in the first place - instead of lengthening and expanding the capabilities of the 787.

BTW the 77W only misses the emission regs by 1-6% - it's not a large miss.

https://theicct.org/sites/default/files ... an2017.pdf

I'm going to stop now though until there are some real specs on the 350F. Who knows they might be giving it a lot more capability than something vague like 90+ tons. I have seen numbers anywhere from 95-107T. I hope it is 107T or more at 70M - that could be close enough to a 70M 778F at 117T if that number is real to not make a difference.
 
amdiesen
Posts: 222
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 2:27 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sat Aug 21, 2021 5:13 pm

the a350f competes with "Creative Destruction repurposing in the VLA passenger airline market"

"In 2008, then-Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson phoned former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, seeking his input on ways to stabilize the economy. Greenspan "suggested that there was too much housing supply and that the only real way to really fix the problem would be for the government to buy up vacant homes and burn them," according to the book Too Big to Fail."
https://www.fool.com/investing/general/ ... ny%20homes.
 
B777LRF
Posts: 2901
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:23 am

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sat Aug 21, 2021 5:28 pm

Revelation wrote:
[
I think there's a counter point of view provided by Amazon Air, it went with 767F conversions at a time when Boeing still had plenty of capacity to produce factory fresh 767Fs, only recently has production become a bottleneck as FX, UPS and USAF orders build up. Similar was true of FX when they set up their own 757 conversion lines rather than asking Airbus to do an A321F for them. The 77WF is being financed by GECAS so it doesn't seem financiers are staying away from conversions. Financiers have lots of aging 77Ws that need new tasks, a P2F conversion is a godsend to them.

Not saying what you are saying is false, am saying there are different market niches. As above, Airbus thinks it has enough business for a factory fresh freighter, looking forward to hearing more about who will be making commitments to the program. Yet I think conversions will set a ceiling on market acceptance of both A and B new freighters. Charge too much for new and used looks more attractive. Financing is just one component of cost.


1: The requirement for Amazon Air was to get the cheapest lift possible to be used exclusively in the US domestic market. They went and found the cheapest bidder, who just happened to bid converted 767s because that's what they already had on the books. Had another bidder offered A300-600F cheaper, Amazon would have gone with that. The 50 tons, 3000NM, 767 as used on the US domestic market is, however, utterly irrelevant in the intercontinental 5000NM, 100 tons, market.
2: FedEx started converting 757s to supplement those it already had on the books, that was the primary reason they went with that type. Secondly the 757 was available cheap, whereas the A321 was not. Thirdly, FedEx used someone else's STC for the conversion, something Airbus wasn't prepared to do.
3: GECAS are financing 77W conversion more out of desperation than anything, as there is no second hand market for so many passenger aircraft coming off lease and being replaced by 787s, 777-9s and A350s. By developing the -300ERSF they are extending the service life of the aircraft, and can thereby harvest loads of money on engine leasing deals and the GE can continue to support the engines.
4: The vast majority of heavy-lift, long-haul, freighting has always been carried out by aircraft bought factory fresh; B747, MD-11F and 777F. The A350F is just the latest offering in that well-established market.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2680
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sat Aug 21, 2021 6:08 pm

2175301 wrote:
I have not posted in this thread in a long time. My last post said something like I wish Airbus the best with the A350F. However, I'm not sure that it will work out economically. Time will tell. Note that I'm also not sure that an B77X-F will work out economically as well. I believe that both the A350F and B77XF are gambles. But, business is about taking educated gambles.

Have a great day,


The 77F was considered a gamble back when it was introduced, that happened along with a surge in wide body production, but it did well over time, in part because the 77W was on fire orders wise. It was also at a time when the existing fleet had a lot of older 747 and DC-10 / MD-11 frames in service. Market conditions caused a lot of these older frames to be retired and not many candidates for conversion. However, there is a huge number of 77W's and A330's now available for conversion.

Something many forget is that for well over a year, belly freight has been severely constrained due to Covid & the reduced passenger utilization. What happens to the market when this belly freight capacity returns, prior to Covid air freight was in over capacity.

I agree the economics of new build freighters looks tenuous at this time, P2F conversions will cover most of the needed capacity at far lower cost than new build's.
 
Daysleeper
Posts: 743
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sat Aug 21, 2021 6:10 pm

morrisond wrote:

I don't think you ever actually asked me for a specific source until now. But if the 77W is allowed to fly after 2028(and it will) why would a 777ERSF not be able to?


I have, multiple times but it is possible that some of these requests have been moderated off the forums, however the fact you have again not posted a source that explicitly states a new conversation can operate post 2028 without penalty leaves me to believe you don’t have one.

morrisond wrote:
The standard only applies to newly delivered aircraft. I can't find anything that says it applies to conversions. So therefore it does not apply - unless you can find something that says it does. That is common practise in the industry. Converting an airplane does not make it new.


Well that is what we are debating, my understanding is that a new conversion has to apply for a new type certificate (at least within the EU) and would be unable to do so if it is not compliant with the new emissions regulations. There is also much discussion regarding fines and penalties for non-compliant aircraft operating within EU airspace regardless of where it was initially certified.

This is going to be a big deal, given that wild wires are erupting all over the world which are tied to climate change then its safe to assume that regulation is only going to get more stringent. The market is going to need a new build freighter which is regulation compliant.

With this in mind, if you’re an airline CEO looking to invest in a future fleet what would you order? A conversion with the prospects of it being severely limited in its operations due to local emissions standards or taxed\fined due to same. The sensible money would obviously be on purchasing a new build that is going to be compliant with all said regulation. I guess this is why Boeing have made no secret of them developing a future XF version at some point.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26981
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sat Aug 21, 2021 6:27 pm

B777LRF wrote:
3: GECAS are financing 77W conversion more out of desperation than anything, as there is no second hand market for so many passenger aircraft coming off lease and being replaced by 787s, 777-9s and A350s. By developing the -300ERSF they are extending the service life of the aircraft, and can thereby harvest loads of money on engine leasing deals and the GE can continue to support the engines.
4: The vast majority of heavy-lift, long-haul, freighting has always been carried out by aircraft bought factory fresh; B747, MD-11F and 777F. The A350F is just the latest offering in that well-established market.

I think when B747F, MD-11F and 77F were purchased factory fresh there was not an alternative available that was as good as I think 77WF conversions will be. They will be great in the higher volume lower density market that e-commerce has created. As you suggest, GE and IAI are highly motivated to come up with an attractive product at an attractive price. I wouldn't discount them to the degree some here seem to be doing.
 
morrisond
Posts: 3497
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sat Aug 21, 2021 6:54 pm

Daysleeper wrote:
morrisond wrote:

I don't think you ever actually asked me for a specific source until now. But if the 77W is allowed to fly after 2028(and it will) why would a 777ERSF not be able to?


I have, multiple times but it is possible that some of these requests have been moderated off the forums, however the fact you have again not posted a source that explicitly states a new conversation can operate post 2028 without penalty leaves me to believe you don’t have one.

morrisond wrote:
The standard only applies to newly delivered aircraft. I can't find anything that says it applies to conversions. So therefore it does not apply - unless you can find something that says it does. That is common practise in the industry. Converting an airplane does not make it new.


Well that is what we are debating, my understanding is that a new conversion has to apply for a new type certificate (at least within the EU) and would be unable to do so if it is not compliant with the new emissions regulations. There is also much discussion regarding fines and penalties for non-compliant aircraft operating within EU airspace regardless of where it was initially certified.

This is going to be a big deal, given that wild wires are erupting all over the world which are tied to climate change then its safe to assume that regulation is only going to get more stringent. The market is going to need a new build freighter which is regulation compliant.

With this in mind, if you’re an airline CEO looking to invest in a future fleet what would you order? A conversion with the prospects of it being severely limited in its operations due to local emissions standards or taxed\fined due to same. The sensible money would obviously be on purchasing a new build that is going to be compliant with all said regulation. I guess this is why Boeing have made no secret of them developing a future XF version at some point.


Easy - I would invest in the most flexible capable aircraft. I would have no idea what Cargo needs are 10 years from now - they could be a lot denser as things like packaging get a lot more efficient to reduce the number of flights.

Reduce the size of an iPhone package to not much more than the phone and get 5-10x the number in an an Aircraft we currently are.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4287
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sat Aug 21, 2021 7:04 pm

Over 22 years an ERSF burns about 125m more in fuel and costs 35m to convert. Even looking before maintenance and financing costs we see the need for the doner 77W to be ~160m less than the Airbus offering. This assumes about 11.5hrs daily utilisation.

For 10hrs utilisation the figure goes to about 145m.

The lowest value for 77w today is around 26m?

I believe it was mentioned on a.net that QR we’re paying about 170m for their A35k.

*Values derived from A35k and 77W specs.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Daysleeper
Posts: 743
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sat Aug 21, 2021 7:09 pm

morrisond wrote:
Easy - I would invest in the most flexible capable aircraft. I would have no idea what Cargo needs are 10 years from now - they could be a lot denser as things like packaging get a lot more efficient to reduce the number of flights.

Reduce the size of an iPhone package to not much more than the phone and get 5-10x the number in an an Aircraft we currently are.


I agree, and the A350F with its range, fuel economics, regulation compliance and potential for single pilot will undoubtedly be able to fill that role.

I have no doubt that there is going to be competition from the ERSF but only in the short term, towards the end of the decade I doubt very much that any operator will be buying obsolete none compliant aircraft as it would not make financial sense. This leads us back to big question, if the A350F secures orders and goes into production well before there is any chance of an XF is it going to be worth Boeings time even developing one?
 
morrisond
Posts: 3497
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sat Aug 21, 2021 7:53 pm

Daysleeper wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Easy - I would invest in the most flexible capable aircraft. I would have no idea what Cargo needs are 10 years from now - they could be a lot denser as things like packaging get a lot more efficient to reduce the number of flights.

Reduce the size of an iPhone package to not much more than the phone and get 5-10x the number in an an Aircraft we currently are.


I agree, and the A350F with its range, fuel economics, regulation compliance and potential for single pilot will undoubtedly be able to fill that role.

I have no doubt that there is going to be competition from the ERSF but only in the short term, towards the end of the decade I doubt very much that any operator will be buying obsolete none compliant aircraft as it would not make financial sense. This leads us back to big question, if the A350F secures orders and goes into production well before there is any chance of an XF is it going to be worth Boeings time even developing one?


It's probably easier for Boeing to do the Xf - just take all the Cargo handling systems/floor structure and doors that make make an 77F unique and are already engineered and put them in a shortened 777-9.

That should not take any longer than an 350-950F and possibly less time. The test team is already stood up for -9.

The A350F may not be able to lift enough to fill it with future possible denser loads.

Why is Airbus unique in being able to do Single Pilot? In detail please - what hardware does it have that Boeing doesn't.
 
morrisond
Posts: 3497
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sat Aug 21, 2021 8:06 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
Over 22 years an ERSF burns about 125m more in fuel and costs 35m to convert. Even looking before maintenance and financing costs we see the need for the doner 77W to be ~160m less than the Airbus offering. This assumes about 11.5hrs daily utilisation.

For 10hrs utilisation the figure goes to about 145m.

The lowest value for 77w today is around 26m?

I believe it was mentioned on a.net that QR we’re paying about 170m for their A35k.

*Values derived from A35k and 77W specs.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Very simplistically but assuming an average interest rate of 5% that extra $110 million of Capital costs $5.5 Million to finance per year - about the same as the fuel cost savings.

The 777ERSF is a lot cheaper as you still have to find that extra $110 Million. 777ERSF 3 for the price of 1.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4287
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sat Aug 21, 2021 8:08 pm

morrisond wrote:
Daysleeper wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Easy - I would invest in the most flexible capable aircraft. I would have no idea what Cargo needs are 10 years from now - they could be a lot denser as things like packaging get a lot more efficient to reduce the number of flights.

Reduce the size of an iPhone package to not much more than the phone and get 5-10x the number in an an Aircraft we currently are.


I agree, and the A350F with its range, fuel economics, regulation compliance and potential for single pilot will undoubtedly be able to fill that role.

I have no doubt that there is going to be competition from the ERSF but only in the short term, towards the end of the decade I doubt very much that any operator will be buying obsolete none compliant aircraft as it would not make financial sense. This leads us back to big question, if the A350F secures orders and goes into production well before there is any chance of an XF is it going to be worth Boeings time even developing one?


It's probably easier for Boeing to do the Xf - just take all the Cargo handling systems/floor structure and doors that make make an 77F unique and are already engineered and put them in a shortened 777-9.

That should not take any longer than an 350-950F and possibly less time. The test team is already stood up for -9.

The A350F may not be able to lift enough to fill it with future possible denser loads.

Why is Airbus unique in being able to do Single Pilot? In detail please - what hardware does it have that Boeing doesn't.

How could they use all the same stuff?

I thought: viewtopic.php?t=1441751

It’s basically a new plane no?

And a new length to certify, I thought you said that was very onerous?

At least the A350 is certified.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Daysleeper
Posts: 743
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sat Aug 21, 2021 8:44 pm

morrisond wrote:

It's probably easier for Boeing to do the Xf - just take all the Cargo handling systems/floor structure and doors that make make an 77F unique and are already engineered and put them in a shortened 777-9.

That should not take any longer than an 350-950F and possibly less time. The test team is already stood up for -9.


I was not aware that the XF would be based upon the 9, everything I have read, which I admit is entirely speculation at this point, has it based upon the 8. This would fit within the historical pattern of building freighters on the shorter variant, but who knows, perhaps Boeing would produce a 9Xf?

In regard to it being a simple, easy task, well maybe, but the 77X is already almost 4 years late to market and very much in the red. I highly doubt that once compensation for late deliveries are taken into account that they will turn a profit on any of the passenger variants. Which leaves Boeing in a difficult situation, in the past developing a freighter variant would be a no-brainer as there was no competition. But now that there is, they are going to be forced to compete on price, and this may be extremely difficult given that the program is already in a hole.

This really enforces the “opportunity” Airbus have right now; they are in a similar situation in that a freighter A350 was always intended, hence much of the underlying engineering work has been incorporated into the frame. Which should make producing one both a relatively simple task and more importantly a very cheap one. The situation differs somewhat when you take into consideration the fact that the A350 has already sold 950 frames, and the program is already turning a profit. This gives Airbus a significant advantage, should they invest a small amount and develop a freighter they only need to sell a few to make a profit, and hell even if they sell none but force Boeing to be extremely competitive on the price of the XF then its still a win as the A350 program as whole is going to make them a lot of money regardless.

morrisond wrote:
The A350F may not be able to lift enough to fill it with future possible denser loads.
Why is Airbus unique in being able to do Single Pilot? In detail please - what hardware does it have that Boeing doesn't.

Well if the load is dense, then they can fill the rest of the aircraft with air in order offset it.

And as I stated above, I don’t think single pilot operations is unique. I do however think that It would be impossible to implement on the 77X due to it being grandfathered to the 777.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26981
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sat Aug 21, 2021 10:43 pm

morrisond wrote:
I don't think you ever actually asked me for a specific source until now. But if the 77W is allowed to fly after 2028(and it will) why would a 777ERSF not be able to?

ICAO's own presser from 2017 i.e. ten years before the rule goes into force says:

The Standard will apply to new aircraft type designs from 2020, and to aircraft type designs already in-production as of 2023. Those in-production aircraft which by 2028 do not meet the standard will no longer be able to be produced unless their designs are sufficiently modified.

And:

Embedded applicability date(s):

Subsonic jet aeroplanes, including their derived versions, of greater than 5 700 kg maximum take-off mass for which the application for a type certificate was submitted on or after 1 January 2020, except for those aeroplanes of less than or equal to 60 000 kg maximum take-off mass with a maximum passenger seating capacity of 19 seats or less;

Subsonic jet aeroplanes, including their derived versions, of greater than 5 700 kg and less than or equal to 60 000 kg maximum take-off mass with a maximum passenger seating capacity of 19 seats or less, for which the application for a type certificate was submitted on or after 1 January 2023;

Ref: https://www.icao.int/newsroom/pages/ica ... craft.aspx

"Type certificate" has a distinct meaning ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_certificate ) and that meaning is distinct from Supplemental Type Certificate ( ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplemen ... ertificate ). Since the freighter conversion is done via STC ( https://www.aircargonews.net/airlines/f ... freighter/ ) it is not covered by the ICAO 2028 rules.

And yes, as you say, if all 777s were banned from 2028 onward we'd know about it already. Whether a given airport or nation may chose to penalize based on emissions is a different matter entirely, there's no ICAO mandate on that.

US EPA says it will maintain "international consistency" and "a level playing field" but:

Most new aircraft comply with the EPA’s new rules already, but the the agency says that it expects non-compliant aircraft such as the Boeing 767 freighter will ”either be modified and re-certificated as compliant, will likely go out of production before the production compliance date of January 1, 2028, or will seek exemptions from the GHG standard”. Therefore, EPA says, it is not expecting the new rule to result in new greenhouse gas reductions.

”Even if we assume no continuous improvement, the projected GHG emissions reductions for the final standards will still be zero since all the non-compliant airplanes… are projected to be out of production by 2028,” the EPA writes. ”For these reasons, the EPA is not projecting emission reductions associated with these GHG regulations.”

Ref: https://www.flightglobal.com/airframers ... 69.article

So, no impact from ICAO 2028 rules since all non-compliant US produced aircraft will be out of production by then or will "seek exemptions".
 
morrisond
Posts: 3497
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sat Aug 21, 2021 11:24 pm

Revelation wrote:
morrisond wrote:
I don't think you ever actually asked me for a specific source until now. But if the 77W is allowed to fly after 2028(and it will) why would a 777ERSF not be able to?

ICAO's own presser from 2017 i.e. ten years before the rule goes into force says:

The Standard will apply to new aircraft type designs from 2020, and to aircraft type designs already in-production as of 2023. Those in-production aircraft which by 2028 do not meet the standard will no longer be able to be produced unless their designs are sufficiently modified.

And:

Embedded applicability date(s):

Subsonic jet aeroplanes, including their derived versions, of greater than 5 700 kg maximum take-off mass for which the application for a type certificate was submitted on or after 1 January 2020, except for those aeroplanes of less than or equal to 60 000 kg maximum take-off mass with a maximum passenger seating capacity of 19 seats or less;

Subsonic jet aeroplanes, including their derived versions, of greater than 5 700 kg and less than or equal to 60 000 kg maximum take-off mass with a maximum passenger seating capacity of 19 seats or less, for which the application for a type certificate was submitted on or after 1 January 2023;

Ref: https://www.icao.int/newsroom/pages/ica ... craft.aspx

"Type certificate" has a distinct meaning ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_certificate ) and that meaning is distinct from Supplemental Type Certificate ( ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplemen ... ertificate ). Since the freighter conversion is done via STC ( https://www.aircargonews.net/airlines/f ... freighter/ ) it is not covered by the ICAO 2028 rules.

And yes, as you say, if all 777s were banned from 2028 onward we'd know about it already. Whether a given airport or nation may chose to penalize based on emissions is a different matter entirely, there's no ICAO mandate on that.

US EPA says it will maintain "international consistency" and "a level playing field" but:

Most new aircraft comply with the EPA’s new rules already, but the the agency says that it expects non-compliant aircraft such as the Boeing 767 freighter will ”either be modified and re-certificated as compliant, will likely go out of production before the production compliance date of January 1, 2028, or will seek exemptions from the GHG standard”. Therefore, EPA says, it is not expecting the new rule to result in new greenhouse gas reductions.

”Even if we assume no continuous improvement, the projected GHG emissions reductions for the final standards will still be zero since all the non-compliant airplanes… are projected to be out of production by 2028,” the EPA writes. ”For these reasons, the EPA is not projecting emission reductions associated with these GHG regulations.”

Ref: https://www.flightglobal.com/airframers ... 69.article

So, no impact from ICAO 2028 rules since all non-compliant US produced aircraft will be out of production by then or will "seek exemptions".


Thanks.

Well that about wraps it up in terms how this new rule will (not)save the planet.
 
morrisond
Posts: 3497
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sat Aug 21, 2021 11:26 pm

morrisond wrote:
Daysleeper wrote:
morrisond wrote:

It's probably easier for Boeing to do the Xf - just take all the Cargo handling systems/floor structure and doors that make make an 77F unique and are already engineered and put them in a shortened 777-9.

That should not take any longer than an 350-950F and possibly less time. The test team is already stood up for -9.


I was not aware that the XF would be based upon the 9, everything I have read, which I admit is entirely speculation at this point, has it based upon the 8. This would fit within the historical pattern of building freighters on the shorter variant, but who knows, perhaps Boeing would produce a 9Xf?

In regard to it being a simple, easy task, well maybe, but the 77X is already almost 4 years late to market and very much in the red. I highly doubt that once compensation for late deliveries are taken into account that they will turn a profit on any of the passenger variants. Which leaves Boeing in a difficult situation, in the past developing a freighter variant would be a no-brainer as there was no competition. But now that there is, they are going to be forced to compete on price, and this may be extremely difficult given that the program is already in a hole.

This really enforces the “opportunity” Airbus have right now; they are in a similar situation in that a freighter A350 was always intended, hence much of the underlying engineering work has been incorporated into the frame. Which should make producing one both a relatively simple task and more importantly a very cheap one. The situation differs somewhat when you take into consideration the fact that the A350 has already sold 950 frames, and the program is already turning a profit. This gives Airbus a significant advantage, should they invest a small amount and develop a freighter they only need to sell a few to make a profit, and hell even if they sell none but force Boeing to be extremely competitive on the price of the XF then its still a win as the A350 program as whole is going to make them a lot of money regardless.

morrisond wrote:
The A350F may not be able to lift enough to fill it with future possible denser loads.
Why is Airbus unique in being able to do Single Pilot? In detail please - what hardware does it have that Boeing doesn't.

Well if the load is dense, then they can fill the rest of the aircraft with air in order offset it.

And as I stated above, I don’t think single pilot operations is unique. I do however think that It would be impossible to implement on the 77X due to it being grandfathered to the 777.


Boeing 77X costs have already been written off. They can price it quite keenly.

So if it costs Airbus say $2Billion to build a custom length freighter and you think they only have to sell a few to recoup that.? Okay lets say a few is 50 - I'll be generous - that is a lot more than a few - that is $40 million per frame. That is not nothing and if they launch it on 20 - That is $100 million per frame.

Boeing has an 777-8? The latest incarnation of the 778 was a cut down 779. I also did say "shortened 777-9".


Now what would make sense is to spend say $3B on the 351 turn it into a 351F and boost it's MZFW and MTOW which would also allow an 350-1100.

Now then you might sell 300 combined and reduce the per frame cost to say $10 million or so.
 
smartplane
Posts: 1763
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sat Aug 21, 2021 11:33 pm

Revelation wrote:
morrisond wrote:
I don't think you ever actually asked me for a specific source until now. But if the 77W is allowed to fly after 2028(and it will) why would a 777ERSF not be able to?

ICAO's own presser from 2017 i.e. ten years before the rule goes into force says:

The Standard will apply to new aircraft type designs from 2020, and to aircraft type designs already in-production as of 2023. Those in-production aircraft which by 2028 do not meet the standard will no longer be able to be produced unless their designs are sufficiently modified.

And:

Embedded applicability date(s):

Subsonic jet aeroplanes, including their derived versions, of greater than 5 700 kg maximum take-off mass for which the application for a type certificate was submitted on or after 1 January 2020, except for those aeroplanes of less than or equal to 60 000 kg maximum take-off mass with a maximum passenger seating capacity of 19 seats or less;

Subsonic jet aeroplanes, including their derived versions, of greater than 5 700 kg and less than or equal to 60 000 kg maximum take-off mass with a maximum passenger seating capacity of 19 seats or less, for which the application for a type certificate was submitted on or after 1 January 2023;

Ref: https://www.icao.int/newsroom/pages/ica ... craft.aspx

"Type certificate" has a distinct meaning ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_certificate ) and that meaning is distinct from Supplemental Type Certificate ( ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplemen ... ertificate ). Since the freighter conversion is done via STC ( https://www.aircargonews.net/airlines/f ... freighter/ ) it is not covered by the ICAO 2028 rules.

And yes, as you say, if all 777s were banned from 2028 onward we'd know about it already. Whether a given airport or nation may chose to penalize based on emissions is a different matter entirely, there's no ICAO mandate on that.

US EPA says it will maintain "international consistency" and "a level playing field" but:

Most new aircraft comply with the EPA’s new rules already, but the the agency says that it expects non-compliant aircraft such as the Boeing 767 freighter will ”either be modified and re-certificated as compliant, will likely go out of production before the production compliance date of January 1, 2028, or will seek exemptions from the GHG standard”. Therefore, EPA says, it is not expecting the new rule to result in new greenhouse gas reductions.

”Even if we assume no continuous improvement, the projected GHG emissions reductions for the final standards will still be zero since all the non-compliant airplanes… are projected to be out of production by 2028,” the EPA writes. ”For these reasons, the EPA is not projecting emission reductions associated with these GHG regulations.”

Ref: https://www.flightglobal.com/airframers ... 69.article

So, no impact from ICAO 2028 rules since all non-compliant US produced aircraft will be out of production by then or will "seek exemptions".

Much has occurred since CORSIA and flow on rules were promulgated.

The UN has demanded ICAO (and IMO) speed up implementation of their respective climate change initiatives, and since COVID, to use fleet retirement, and capital relaxation to stimulate growth / recovery, to replace old with new.

OEM's have been fence sitting, supporting conversions of older aircraft, because they and their strategic partners still have financial exposure to those aircraft and customers, while at the same time promoting the 'buy new' to stimulate sales their own businesses. As mentioned in the Caravelle thread, watch OEM's withdraw support for older aircraft much faster than at any other time in the past, using cost, safety and emission justifications.

Owners / operators have been lobbying for extensions and / or penalty concessions, except those with young fleets, who have quite the opposite stance.

Financiers and insurers are looking to green their portfolios. They don't want to be named and shamed, linked to aircraft which won't be compliant. And if they can't extricate, watch out for surcharges.

Countries will do the same. Of course, if a case of receiving vaccine supplies versus not, then non-compliant aircraft will be acceptable, but otherwise, they won't, and operators will be penalised for over flights and operations to specific airports.

I was one that thought COVID would see a softening / relaxation of targets, but the UN is using as a catalyst for a step, rather than a progressive change.
 
AngMoh
Posts: 1133
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2011 5:03 am

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sun Aug 22, 2021 12:38 am

morrisond wrote:
It's probably easier for Boeing to do the Xf - just take all the Cargo handling systems/floor structure and doors that make make an 77F unique and are already engineered and put them in a shortened 777-9.


It is most likely not that easy: for the 777-9, the fuselage was changed including materials change, window size bigger and thinner walls to make more space internally. These components might have to be significantly redesigned and re-certified.
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Posts: 12013
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sun Aug 22, 2021 2:05 am

Could we please just keep to the topic. Thread is about a A350F not about 777XF or 777p2f, if you wish to discuss the later take it to the appropriate thread
 
2175301
Posts: 2226
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sun Aug 22, 2021 2:53 am

qf789 wrote:
Could we please just keep to the topic. Thread is about a A350F not about 777XF or 777p2f, if you wish to discuss the later take it to the appropriate thread


Agreed: The debate about conversions and what the 2028 standards apply does not really apply. I myself researched that years ago and discovered that it only applied to new builds and not conversions.

So the 777P2F program will apply after 2028 and will be a competitor to the proposed A350F and the proposed B777XF.

Have a great day,
 
Noshow
Posts: 2830
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sun Aug 22, 2021 8:57 am

The basic ability to create a freighter later on got baked into the airframe from the very beginning anyway. So cargo door openings will be kept unobstructed, floor loads made upgradeable and such. Main deck dimensions will have kept typical container sizes and cargo usability in mind as well. You can bet this is the same on the 787.
Last edited by Noshow on Sun Aug 22, 2021 8:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4287
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sun Aug 22, 2021 8:59 am

Except that the 26m is for an 18 year old example and then the 26+ 35m is written off over 4years to be comparative. Meaning that it’s ~15m/year in financing costs.

A new example of a 77W is around 100m (as seen by UA and BA). So the difference on a like for like basis is closer to 35m in costs. A lower cost example would always have a lower residual value.

If you are worried about financing costs then I’d suggest a non manufacturer approved mod isn’t the way forward.

If you want quick lift then it might be the route forward but I’m not sure what rate the ERSF would be available or when or how long you asset stands idle being modified whilst losing value.

Fred
morrisond wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Daysleeper wrote:

I was not aware that the XF would be based upon the 9, everything I have read, which I admit is entirely speculation at this point, has it based upon the 8. This would fit within the historical pattern of building freighters on the shorter variant, but who knows, perhaps Boeing would produce a 9Xf?

In regard to it being a simple, easy task, well maybe, but the 77X is already almost 4 years late to market and very much in the red. I highly doubt that once compensation for late deliveries are taken into account that they will turn a profit on any of the passenger variants. Which leaves Boeing in a difficult situation, in the past developing a freighter variant would be a no-brainer as there was no competition. But now that there is, they are going to be forced to compete on price, and this may be extremely difficult given that the program is already in a hole.

This really enforces the “opportunity” Airbus have right now; they are in a similar situation in that a freighter A350 was always intended, hence much of the underlying engineering work has been incorporated into the frame. Which should make producing one both a relatively simple task and more importantly a very cheap one. The situation differs somewhat when you take into consideration the fact that the A350 has already sold 950 frames, and the program is already turning a profit. This gives Airbus a significant advantage, should they invest a small amount and develop a freighter they only need to sell a few to make a profit, and hell even if they sell none but force Boeing to be extremely competitive on the price of the XF then its still a win as the A350 program as whole is going to make them a lot of money regardless.


Well if the load is dense, then they can fill the rest of the aircraft with air in order offset it.

And as I stated above, I don’t think single pilot operations is unique. I do however think that It would be impossible to implement on the 77X due to it being grandfathered to the 777.


Boeing 77X costs have already been written off. They can price it quite keenly.

So if it costs Airbus say $2Billion to build a custom length freighter and you think they only have to sell a few to recoup that.? Okay lets say a few is 50 - I'll be generous - that is a lot more than a few - that is $40 million per frame. That is not nothing and if they launch it on 20 - That is $100 million per frame.

Boeing has an 777-8? The latest incarnation of the 778 was a cut down 779. I also did say "shortened 777-9".


Now what would make sense is to spend say $3B on the 351 turn it into a 351F and boost it's MZFW and MTOW which would also allow an 350-1100.

Now then you might sell 300 combined and reduce the per frame cost to say $10 million or so.

Sounds reasonable to amortise 2bn over 50 or so frames. Current A350 is amortising ~20bn over 900.

The use of existing components allows economies of scale to be applied particularly to the more niche A35k for which the A35F will share many structural parts it seems. If the A35F can double the expected use over the model life time 300->600 then you would reasonably expect 3-4m reductions in build costs. (Off the top of my head as I don’t have my build cost spreadsheet on me).

Like most mature manufacturing industries, the key is rate and uptime. Boeing did a fantastic job at this and upping their rate to ~13/14pm.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Gremlinzzzz
Posts: 418
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:28 am

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sun Aug 22, 2021 9:22 am

flipdewaf wrote:
Except that the 26m is for an 18 year old example and then the 26+ 35m is written off over 4years to be comparative. Meaning that it’s ~15m/year in financing costs.

A new example of a 77W is around 100m (as seen by UA and BA). So the difference on a like for like basis is closer to 35m in costs. A lower cost example would always have a lower residual value.

If you are worried about financing costs then I’d suggest a non manufacturer approved mod isn’t the way forward.

If you want quick lift then it might be the route forward but I’m not sure what rate the ERSF would be available or when or how long you asset stands idle being modified whilst losing value.

Fred
morrisond wrote:
morrisond wrote:

Boeing 77X costs have already been written off. They can price it quite keenly.

So if it costs Airbus say $2Billion to build a custom length freighter and you think they only have to sell a few to recoup that.? Okay lets say a few is 50 - I'll be generous - that is a lot more than a few - that is $40 million per frame. That is not nothing and if they launch it on 20 - That is $100 million per frame.

Boeing has an 777-8? The latest incarnation of the 778 was a cut down 779. I also did say "shortened 777-9".


Now what would make sense is to spend say $3B on the 351 turn it into a 351F and boost it's MZFW and MTOW which would also allow an 350-1100.

Now then you might sell 300 combined and reduce the per frame cost to say $10 million or so.

Sounds reasonable to amortise 2bn over 50 or so frames. Current A350 is amortising ~20bn over 900.

The use of existing components allows economies of scale to be applied particularly to the more niche A35k for which the A35F will share many structural parts it seems. If the A35F can double the expected use over the model life time 300->600 then you would reasonably expect 3-4m reductions in build costs. (Off the top of my head as I don’t have my build cost spreadsheet on me).

Like most mature manufacturing industries, the key is rate and uptime. Boeing did a fantastic job at this and upping their rate to ~13/14pm.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
$15.2 Billion on 900 frames.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-airshow-airbus-sb-idUKTRE55F1Y720090616
 
JonesNL
Posts: 474
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:40 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sun Aug 22, 2021 11:32 am

morrisond wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Daysleeper wrote:

I was not aware that the XF would be based upon the 9, everything I have read, which I admit is entirely speculation at this point, has it based upon the 8. This would fit within the historical pattern of building freighters on the shorter variant, but who knows, perhaps Boeing would produce a 9Xf?

In regard to it being a simple, easy task, well maybe, but the 77X is already almost 4 years late to market and very much in the red. I highly doubt that once compensation for late deliveries are taken into account that they will turn a profit on any of the passenger variants. Which leaves Boeing in a difficult situation, in the past developing a freighter variant would be a no-brainer as there was no competition. But now that there is, they are going to be forced to compete on price, and this may be extremely difficult given that the program is already in a hole.

This really enforces the “opportunity” Airbus have right now; they are in a similar situation in that a freighter A350 was always intended, hence much of the underlying engineering work has been incorporated into the frame. Which should make producing one both a relatively simple task and more importantly a very cheap one. The situation differs somewhat when you take into consideration the fact that the A350 has already sold 950 frames, and the program is already turning a profit. This gives Airbus a significant advantage, should they invest a small amount and develop a freighter they only need to sell a few to make a profit, and hell even if they sell none but force Boeing to be extremely competitive on the price of the XF then its still a win as the A350 program as whole is going to make them a lot of money regardless.


Well if the load is dense, then they can fill the rest of the aircraft with air in order offset it.

And as I stated above, I don’t think single pilot operations is unique. I do however think that It would be impossible to implement on the 77X due to it being grandfathered to the 777.


Boeing 77X costs have already been written off. They can price it quite keenly.

So if it costs Airbus say $2Billion to build a custom length freighter and you think they only have to sell a few to recoup that.? Okay lets say a few is 50 - I'll be generous - that is a lot more than a few - that is $40 million per frame. That is not nothing and if they launch it on 20 - That is $100 million per frame.

Boeing has an 777-8? The latest incarnation of the 778 was a cut down 779. I also did say "shortened 777-9".


Now what would make sense is to spend say $3B on the 351 turn it into a 351F and boost it's MZFW and MTOW which would also allow an 350-1100.

Now then you might sell 300 combined and reduce the per frame cost to say $10 million or so.


If the plane will be on sale for 20 years you can probably amortise it over higher number of planes. My guess would be first 10 years the plane will work to reclaim the 2b investment and the last 10 years it will start to bring in nice profits. Another big benefit of this setup that is mentioned by Fred is; higher scale and lower cost for pax versions. So, if the freighter only creates 100 sales in 20 years and creates another 100 sales for the A351, it could be considered highly successful.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 1146
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sun Aug 22, 2021 11:58 am

What kind of engine PiP can we expect for the 350F? 1%, 2%, even 3% reduction in fuel burn?

The exclusivity up to 2030 for the RR engine that was signed lately must have come with some benefit for Airbus so I see a PiP coming but how much can we expect?

Thrust bump + fuel burn reduction + MTOW increase of 3t would make not only the 35F a lot more capable but also the -1000 able to do Project Sunrise with a great payload. On top of that a stretch would then be achievable if wished by the airlines.

I see this step as the very last update before a reengine in 10-12 years.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4287
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sun Aug 22, 2021 12:27 pm

Gremlinzzzz wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
Except that the 26m is for an 18 year old example and then the 26+ 35m is written off over 4years to be comparative. Meaning that it’s ~15m/year in financing costs.

A new example of a 77W is around 100m (as seen by UA and BA). So the difference on a like for like basis is closer to 35m in costs. A lower cost example would always have a lower residual value.

If you are worried about financing costs then I’d suggest a non manufacturer approved mod isn’t the way forward.

If you want quick lift then it might be the route forward but I’m not sure what rate the ERSF would be available or when or how long you asset stands idle being modified whilst losing value.

Fred
morrisond wrote:

Now what would make sense is to spend say $3B on the 351 turn it into a 351F and boost it's MZFW and MTOW which would also allow an 350-1100.

Now then you might sell 300 combined and reduce the per frame cost to say $10 million or so.

Sounds reasonable to amortise 2bn over 50 or so frames. Current A350 is amortising ~20bn over 900.

The use of existing components allows economies of scale to be applied particularly to the more niche A35k for which the A35F will share many structural parts it seems. If the A35F can double the expected use over the model life time 300->600 then you would reasonably expect 3-4m reductions in build costs. (Off the top of my head as I don’t have my build cost spreadsheet on me).

Like most mature manufacturing industries, the key is rate and uptime. Boeing did a fantastic job at this and upping their rate to ~13/14pm.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
$15.2 Billion on 900 frames.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-airshow-airbus-sb-idUKTRE55F1Y720090616


Yes, 15.2bn in 2009, about 19.5bn in 2021 dollars.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Weatherwatcher1
Posts: 967
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 5:14 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sun Aug 22, 2021 12:39 pm

FluidFlow wrote:
What kind of engine PiP can we expect for the 350F? 1%, 2%, even 3% reduction in fuel burn?

The exclusivity up to 2030 for the RR engine that was signed lately must have come with some benefit for Airbus so I see a PiP coming but how much can we expect?

Thrust bump + fuel burn reduction + MTOW increase of 3t would make not only the 35F a lot more capable but also the -1000 able to do Project Sunrise with a great payload. On top of that a stretch would then be achievable if wished by the airlines.

I see this step as the very last update before a reengine in 10-12 years.


I would see a PiP being required to adjust to the different utilization that a freighter sees instead of purely for fuel burn improvement. If an A350F takes over 747-400F routes it will fly many high payload short hops, which is something that a passenger airplane rarely does.

For example a 747-400F may fly LAX-ANC-NRT-ICN-HKG-NGO-ANC-LAX. The more efficient A350 may skip the ANC stops, but will still fly the 1-3 hour short hops where it is at MLW. Those short hops are very hard on engines, especially the more modern engines with higher bypass ratios and more stages. The GEnx on the 747-8 is lower thrust with a smaller fan, lower bypass ratio and fewer stages and was designed to be more optimized for freighter operations than the 787 version.

I doubt Rolls Royce is going to make an engine specifically designed for the freighter version, so PiPs may be needed to improve durability instead of simply improving fuel efficiency.
 
User avatar
flee
Posts: 1489
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:14 am

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sun Aug 22, 2021 12:48 pm

Wasn't RR developing the Ultrafan (initially for entry into service in 2025) for the A350Neo? Covid has put paid to that service target date because RR is suspending the test programme after this year. Perhaps Airbus might persuade RR to continue development and testing for a soft, low volume launch with the freighter before putting it on the pax models once production can be ramped up?
 
morrisond
Posts: 3497
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sun Aug 22, 2021 1:45 pm

flee wrote:
Wasn't RR developing the Ultrafan (initially for entry into service in 2025) for the A350Neo? Covid has put paid to that service target date because RR is suspending the test programme after this year. Perhaps Airbus might persuade RR to continue development and testing for a soft, low volume launch with the freighter before putting it on the pax models once production can be ramped up?


Generally - People wanting Freighters don't want bleeding edge performance and potential unreliability. Fuel burn is not as big a concern as Passenger Ops.

For package Operations - remember that the Air part is only part of the chain of the package being picked and delivered to the final customer. Whereas fuel may be 25% of a passenger ticket, Fuel burned in a Freighter may only be 5-10% of what a carrier receives for moving a package from one place to another. You burn all the fuel in the trucks picking it up and delivering it as well - not to mention the huge labour costs of doing that.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16423
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sun Aug 22, 2021 2:24 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
Sounds reasonable to amortise 2bn over 50 or so frames. Current A350 is amortising ~20bn over 900.

The use of existing components allows economies of scale to be applied particularly to the more niche A35k for which the A35F will share many structural parts it seems. If the A35F can double the expected use over the model life time 300->600 then you would reasonably expect 3-4m reductions in build costs. (Off the top of my head as I don’t have my build cost spreadsheet on me).


I think the A350 freighter will also increase the resale value of existing A350 passenger aircraft, on a NPV basis airlines looking at future freighters would lock in more efficient aircraft as they always win on a NPV basis.

FluidFlow wrote:
What kind of engine PiP can we expect for the 350F? 1%, 2%, even 3% reduction in fuel burn?

The exclusivity up to 2030 for the RR engine that was signed lately must have come with some benefit for Airbus so I see a PiP coming but how much can we expect?

Thrust bump + fuel burn reduction + MTOW increase of 3t would make not only the 35F a lot more capable but also the -1000 able to do Project Sunrise with a great payload. On top of that a stretch would then be achievable if wished by the airlines.

I see this step as the very last update before a reengine in 10-12 years.


I think RR will end up offering updates for the XWB based off the Advance3 flight testing. This is technology they have already developed, however yet to commercialize. It would be a commercial stepping stone to Ultrafan. They have already announced similar with the Advance2 technology developing the Pearl 10X.

If they can package that as an in service update like they did with the RB211-524 it would provide a mechanism for RR to recover that R&D from its existing userbase. If they were able to do this with the A350 freighter, I could see a reduction in the TSFC reduction of 10% based off the information released about the Advance3 testing. The life cycle value to operators for this would be significant.
 
morrisond
Posts: 3497
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Sun Aug 22, 2021 2:44 pm

zeke wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
Sounds reasonable to amortise 2bn over 50 or so frames. Current A350 is amortising ~20bn over 900.

The use of existing components allows economies of scale to be applied particularly to the more niche A35k for which the A35F will share many structural parts it seems. If the A35F can double the expected use over the model life time 300->600 then you would reasonably expect 3-4m reductions in build costs. (Off the top of my head as I don’t have my build cost spreadsheet on me).


I think the A350 freighter will also increase the resale value of existing A350 passenger aircraft, on a NPV basis airlines looking at future freighters would lock in more efficient aircraft as they always win on a NPV basis.

FluidFlow wrote:
What kind of engine PiP can we expect for the 350F? 1%, 2%, even 3% reduction in fuel burn?

The exclusivity up to 2030 for the RR engine that was signed lately must have come with some benefit for Airbus so I see a PiP coming but how much can we expect?

Thrust bump + fuel burn reduction + MTOW increase of 3t would make not only the 35F a lot more capable but also the -1000 able to do Project Sunrise with a great payload. On top of that a stretch would then be achievable if wished by the airlines.

I see this step as the very last update before a reengine in 10-12 years.


I think RR will end up offering updates for the XWB based off the Advance3 flight testing. This is technology they have already developed, however yet to commercialize. It would be a commercial stepping stone to Ultrafan. They have already announced similar with the Advance2 technology developing the Pearl 10X.

If they can package that as an in service update like they did with the RB211-524 it would provide a mechanism for RR to recover that R&D from its existing userbase. If they were able to do this with the A350 freighter, I could see a reduction in the TSFC reduction of 10% based off the information released about the Advance3 testing. The life cycle value to operators for this would be significant.


10% without a major structural change? Really - I would believe 3-5%

Who is online

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