Devilfish wrote:

Revelation wrote:

As I understand it from other threads, A330F lacks enough payload/range to carry its full payload on TATL runs. It falls a bit shy of the mark for this popular route, whereas 763F with similar engines but narrower fuse and somewhat smaller does not.

The solution has been staring them in the face since the beginning...may be a tad heavier but compensates with increased capabilities.....
...

Revelation wrote:

They should realize retraining as many pilots as FX has will be expensive and FX will want some help bearing that cost. FX also runs a lot of GE engines on 777F and 767F. Retraining mechanics will also be costly.

Revelation wrote:

A330F simply hasn't gained traction in the market. It seems Airbus realizes this and is skipping over a A330NEO freighter to do a A350F.

IMO, the following comment applies not only to the A350F but to an A338F as well.....

mig17 wrote:

I read more : "great aircraft" but you (to Airbus) are expensive ...

Interesting related info from Scott Hamilton:

Airbus hasn’t had a lot of success with freighter aircraft. The end-of-life A300-600R became a dedicated freighter and some A310s were built with cargo doors. Airbus whiffed with the proposed A380F for technical reasons and a realization that loading from at the upper deck in a high wind wasn’t going to work well. The industrial delays also helped kill the A380F.

The new-build A330-200F also flopped. Only 38 were sold. (Airbus CCO) Scherer, who participated in the decision to launch this aircraft, said Airbus should have used the larger A330-300 with its greater volumetric payload as the basis for a new production airplane. The aftermarket conversion has more than 100 slots reserved at EFW, a joint venture of Airbus. Most are for the -300. IAI Bedek recently launched its own A330ceo conversion program.

Ref: https://leehamnews.com/2021/10/28/boein ... um=twitter

So Team A's CCO regrets not doing A333F instead of A32F, and the aftermarket is showing they prefer A333F conversions over A332F conversions.

Previous talk about a330neoF was centred on the 339, possibly with a slight stretch, not the 338.

Revelation wrote:

Of course, this is Cargolux using Airbus to get lower prices on the Boeing 77XF.

I see what you just did there.....

Would the 767 final assembly line be ready to cover serious freighter demand (say Amazon) on top of the low rate tanker plus the odd -300F? IIRC it has been moved to a smaller hall and optimized for military production needs?

Without new engines the 767 production ends in 2027, after that you can not longer register a 767 for the first time.

FluidFlow wrote:

I think the only freighter that was a true success without a functioning pax market is the 767.

A bit OT but I would say a big part of that was because of KC-46. Otherwise 767 production line would have dried up years ago (well before the recent UPS/Fedex orders of course).

On the other hands every other major freighter type does/did have pax type in their production lineups.

Michael

Il-76, A400M, An-124?

Opus99 wrote:

https://cargofacts.com/allposts/business/strategy/cfs-airbus-a350f-market-potential-above-100-units/

This article says that analysts think there’s space for both airbus and Boeing to be successful in the large widebody market. That is BS. They can both have products but there can only be one winner here

If the market is large enough they could both have profitable program. Both the A320 and the B737 are profitable. It is not like a footbal match in which the winner takes it all.

Noshow wrote:

Il-76, A400M, An-124?

The A400M is a military platform, which will lead to uneconomical operation in the civilian world.
The Il-76 is an old generation plane using low bypass engines, not really economical.
The An-124 is no longer produced (although there were talks to restart production).

The A400M legally is a commercial development program that only got converted to military use. Part of it's problems.
The Il-76 has been "neo"d and has been converted to digital design tools to be build in modern versions, mainly military.
The An-124 is in regular commercial use and has no passenger version although some military high density parachutist transport cabin configuration was developed back then.

This had been the claim above:

every other major freighter type does/did have pax type in their production lineups

Noshow wrote:

The A400M legally is a commercial development program that only got converted to military use.

No, the A400M is and always has been a military program (headed by Airbus Military as it was known at the time). It was just decided from the beginning to build and design the plane to meet civil (EASA) standards, using knowledge from the commercial side.

If you check you’ll notice that the type certificate holder is Airbus Miltary Sociedad Limitada (AMSL) in Spain, not Airbus S.A.S. (Aka Airbus’s commercial division) in France.

Noshow wrote:

Would the 767 final assembly line be ready to cover serious freighter demand (say Amazon) on top of the low rate tanker plus the odd -300F? IIRC it has been moved to a smaller hall and optimized for military production needs?

The 767 and A350 don’t really compete since the 767 does regional/domestic flying well (a few operators use it transatlantic and transpacific with ANC stopovers). The A350 is best suited for long haul freight.

With that said, there is plenty of space in Everett to increase production rate on 767 if Boeing wants to make the investment.

Polot wrote:

Noshow wrote:

The A400M legally is a commercial development program that only got converted to military use.

No, the A400M is and always has been a military program (headed by Airbus Military as it was known at the time). It was just decided from the beginning to build and design the plane to meet civil (EASA) standards, using knowledge from the commercial side.

If you check you’ll notice that the type certificate holder is Airbus Miltary Sociedad Limitada (AMSL) in Spain, not Airbus S.A.S. (Aka Airbus’s commercial division) in France.

The point is that all the military provisions make the airplane to heavy and costly as a comercial freighter.

Noshow wrote:

The A400M legally is a commercial development program that only got converted to military use. Part of it's problems.
The Il-76 has been "neo"d and has been converted to digital design tools to be build in modern versions, mainly military.
The An-124 is in regular commercial use and has no passenger version although some military high density parachutist transport cabin configuration was developed back then.

This had been the claim above:

every other major freighter type does/did have pax type in their production lineups

With 55 units built, I wouldn't consider the An-124 as a "major" freighter type.
The A400M started as a military program, and Airbus decided afterwards to try and develop a civilian version; hence why they had to redo the work on the engine ECU software. And, as of right now, there are no civilian orders for the type.
I can only find 6 operating IL-76TD-90s (with the high bypass Aviadvigatel PS-90); the rest uses the low bypass Soloviev D-30...

WayexTDI wrote:

With 55 units built, I wouldn't consider the An-124 as a "major" freighter type.
The A400M started as a military program, and Airbus decided afterwards to try and develop a civilian version; hence why they had to redo the work on the engine ECU software. And, as of right now, there are no civilian orders for the type.
I can only find 6 operating IL-76TD-90s (with the high bypass Aviadvigatel PS-90); the rest uses the low bypass Soloviev D-30...

"Develop to civilian standards" != "Develop a civilian version".

FluidFlow wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

it might be the case that there will be 2 losers…

Also true

The "winner" will be the manufacturer that can produce it as cheap as possible by "subsidizing" it with as many pax versions as possible. I think the only freighter that was a true success without a functioning pax market is the 767. Looking at all the other true freighters, it is a very mixed picture. The 747F and 777F were produced along very successful pax aircraft and I truly think they would not have sold as many and also made as much profit if there would have been no pax version that sold multiple hundreds.

So both, the 777XF and 350F can exist but I predict they will only make money for the manufacturer if the pax version sells very vell. If not they will be produced and sold but most probably will not bring profit for the manufacturer especially when the market will be split.

The winner will also be the manufacturer that manages to launch in the right timeframe. Both Airbus and Boeing needs around 50 orders to justify the launch of their freighter version. I doubt there are 100 potential short term orders sitting there for large widebody freighter.
So will the work done by Airbus all this years earn them suffisant orders to launch or will Boeing recent conteroffer have been enough to shake Airbus plans?

Revelation wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

With 55 units built, I wouldn't consider the An-124 as a "major" freighter type.
The A400M started as a military program, and Airbus decided afterwards to try and develop a civilian version; hence why they had to redo the work on the engine ECU software. And, as of right now, there are no civilian orders for the type.
I can only find 6 operating IL-76TD-90s (with the high bypass Aviadvigatel PS-90); the rest uses the low bypass Soloviev D-30...

"Develop to civilian standards" != "Develop a civilian version".

No civilian version without development to civilian standards. Some work had to be redone (although acceptable to military standards) so civilian airworthiness could be achieved.
Regardless, they have yet to sell a civilian version.

WayexTDI wrote:

Revelation wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

With 55 units built, I wouldn't consider the An-124 as a "major" freighter type.
The A400M started as a military program, and Airbus decided afterwards to try and develop a civilian version; hence why they had to redo the work on the engine ECU software. And, as of right now, there are no civilian orders for the type.
I can only find 6 operating IL-76TD-90s (with the high bypass Aviadvigatel PS-90); the rest uses the low bypass Soloviev D-30...

"Develop to civilian standards" != "Develop a civilian version".

No civilian version without development to civilian standards. Some work had to be redone (although acceptable to military standards) so civilian airworthiness could be achieved.
Regardless, they have yet to sell a civilian version.

My understanding is it was developed to civilian standards mainly to gain full access to civilian airspace which makes a big difference in peacetime operations. Also developing to civilian standards actually can be cheaper since there are more practitioners out there who know civilian standards. EU politics demanded an EU engine for A400M. Thus EuroPower Inc was invented. Unfortunately as a new firm they were not up to speed on civilian standards especially with regard to software development. They screwed up the first attempt and had to start all over again from scratch.

The history of military transports becoming civilian transports is pretty poor. They end up being stronger and thus heavier than most civilian models, and often require a lot more maintenance than civilian models, and have a lot of extra features that have little or no purpose in civilian roles.

Boeing had tried to market the BC-17X (?) as a commercial freighter in a dual use role for the military reserve fleet. No orders.
AFAIK the later built An-124 are made in a lighter weight "commercial" use version with more payload and modern engines. The original had super heavy duty nose and back ramps with titanium floor plates to have tanks roll in and out. It still looks solid and heavy use.

Also fuel efficiency is not really a priority for military operations. It is far more important that the engines also work in very harsh conditions. So who cares if it drinks 10% more than a comparable civilian engine with the same thrust, at least it can operate on that dirt track if necessary.

FluidFlow wrote:

Also fuel efficiency is not really a priority for military operations. It is far more important that the engines also work in very harsh conditions. So who cares if it drinks 10% more than a comparable civilian engine with the same thrust, at least it can operate on that dirt track if necessary.

Tactical aircraft like A400M also to a degree are bullit proof, including engines, which doesn't make them light or cheap.

Coming back to the OP, any news on a A350-950F and possible kaunching customers, current A350 operators like QR, SQ, CX, AF would be likely candidates.

So will the work done by Airbus all this years earn them suffisant orders to launch or will Boeing recent conteroffer have been enough to shake Airbus plans?

Will the work done by Boeing warn the sufficient orders to launch? How's the 777X doing? Often I have the impression people believe Boeing always has money to invest, give discounts, despite known forward losses and 60B debt. Surreal often..

keesje wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

Also fuel efficiency is not really a priority for military operations. It is far more important that the engines also work in very harsh conditions. So who cares if it drinks 10% more than a comparable civilian engine with the same thrust, at least it can operate on that dirt track if necessary.

Tactical aircraft like A400M also to a degree are bullit proof, including engines, which doesn't make them light or cheap.

Coming back to the OP, any news on a A350-950F and possible kaunching customers, current A350 operators like QR, SQ, CX, AF would be likely candidates.

So will the work done by Airbus all this years earn them suffisant orders to launch or will Boeing recent conteroffer have been enough to shake Airbus plans?

Will the work done by Boeing warn the sufficient orders to launch? How's the 777X doing? Often I have the impression people believe Boeing always has money to invest, give discounts, despite known forward losses and 60B debt. Surreal often..

Leave all this talk of investment. Whoever has the orders will bring the money to take the investment in the freighter to take it to the next level.

Look access to capital for Boeing is not a problem. You act like debt is a bad thing, if you manage it properly it won’t be. You also act like Boeing is expected to drop 6 billion today in cash. It’s a long term investment. Any variant or aircraft program is a long term investment. This your 777X freighter quavering is quite the show, it’s almost as though you suspect within yourself that this aircraft will launch and will make life for airbus within this freighter market very difficult or next to impossible then you throw things out there to kind of find what sticks. Airbus probably thought Boeing like you seem to have thought with this your going on about investment and Boeing debt levels that they can’t react and it shows because they have launched an aircraft for about what? 4 months now, no orders, nothing, this Q3 earnings did we even hear anything on the freighter? No update? No orders? Forget what you think the market is saying at a cargofacts conference - it was a poll at the conference it wasn’t even a deep analysis, it was already a tall ask in the cargo market to get this moving.

We know that those customers you mentioned are not going to order any freighter.

CX? You can forget that. They don’t even know which form of existence they’ll have in the coming years. They’re not ordering a damn thing from anybody

AF? To replace what? Or grow what? They have 777Fs and nice belly freight with their 359s and 77Ws

SQ? Maybe, they have 744Fs that they might want to replace, yet that’s not a given

Reuters today reported on air Asia X looking for 321neo freighters and they want to convert some of their 321s to that if airbus were to offer it and I think they should. They’ll have much better luck there than in the large widebody business. Boeing has nothing to counter them there besides converted freighters.

In that same article they talk about the 777X freighter and the fact that industry sources say QR and FedEx are looking like the launch customers for this. Nothing on the 350 freighter launch customers from industry sources?

QR is looking at adding 50 freighters, they’re in a dispute with airbus and said they will not buy anything from airbus till that problem is solved, Airbus says there’s no problem, okay then, that will surely help them sell some freighters. According to aviation week network. QR is scheduled to take a 35K till July 2022. They have 16 grounded 350s, they’ve brought back 380s. To me this does not seem like just a matter of squeeze airbus.

We had FedEx already having cold feet on moving OEMs…the cost involved

Will it be UPS that will buy the 350F? Maybe? Who knows.

It might be cargolux, after all they did have a test flight on the 350 but Airbus will be showing customers that, doesn’t mean they’ll buy it.

Boeing has the ecosystem, the relationships, the commonality and a potentially damn good freighter option. It’s a tough sell for airbus and you know it but I don’t expect you to admit it

But you choose to ignore the fact that the plane which they launched. Has no orders and hasn’t had any update for months other than “interest” and you know it is strange but Let’s see if they prove me wrong at Dubai but they themselves said they’re not driven by airshows.

Opus99 wrote:

keesje wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

Also fuel efficiency is not really a priority for military operations. It is far more important that the engines also work in very harsh conditions. So who cares if it drinks 10% more than a comparable civilian engine with the same thrust, at least it can operate on that dirt track if necessary.

Tactical aircraft like A400M also to a degree are bullit proof, including engines, which doesn't make them light or cheap.

Coming back to the OP, any news on a A350-950F and possible kaunching customers, current A350 operators like QR, SQ, CX, AF would be likely candidates.

So will the work done by Airbus all this years earn them suffisant orders to launch or will Boeing recent conteroffer have been enough to shake Airbus plans?

Will the work done by Boeing warn the sufficient orders to launch? How's the 777X doing? Often I have the impression people believe Boeing always has money to invest, give discounts, despite known forward losses and 60B debt. Surreal often..

Leave all this talk of investment ... Let’s see if they prove me wrong at Dubai but they themselves said they’re not driven by airshows.

Debt and loss aren't the same thing tho.
Some facts :
- The A350 is Airbus new design targeting the 777. And it is doing it quite well if you consider A359 succes as a 77E replacement even with the best seller 789 around. Still to be seen if the A35K as the same succes replacing the 77W.
- Airbus kind if caught Boeing "it's pants down" at the beginning of this year when they announced working on a 350F and already looking for launch customers. At that time, Boeing was still working on the MAX return to service and the X pax delayed certification.
- The 777-X program situation is still raising questions with some large customers like Emirates, Etihad and Cathay.

Now some opinions on my part :
- Boeing is making a lot of noise with a potentiel 777-XF to try talking their customers out of ordering the A350-F but "they are late to the party". An XF was in their plan but not so soon.
- Launching the 777-XF before having solved the contractual turmoil there in with some -X customers may not be a good thing.
- Is the 777-XF better than the A350-F? One is the improvement of the 777 the other has been made to replace it ...

So is Boeing really going to take a new risk on a non mature programme in difficult time for them?

What would people say if Airbus solution to boost the A330neo programm was to launch a new version ?

mig17 wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

keesje wrote:

Tactical aircraft like A400M also to a degree are bullit proof, including engines, which doesn't make them light or cheap.

Coming back to the OP, any news on a A350-950F and possible kaunching customers, current A350 operators like QR, SQ, CX, AF would be likely candidates.



Will the work done by Boeing warn the sufficient orders to launch? How's the 777X doing? Often I have the impression people believe Boeing always has money to invest, give discounts, despite known forward losses and 60B debt. Surreal often..

Leave all this talk of investment ... Let’s see if they prove me wrong at Dubai but they themselves said they’re not driven by airshows.

Debt and loss aren't the same thing tho.
Some facts :
- The A350 is Airbus new design targeting the 777. And it is doing it quite well if you consider A359 succes as a 77E replacement even with the best seller 789 around. Still to be seen if the A35K as the same succes replacing the 77W.
- Airbus kind if caught Boeing "it's pants down" at the beginning of this year when they announced working on a 350F and already looking for launch customers. At that time, Boeing was still working on the MAX return to service and the X pax delayed certification.
- The 777-X program situation is still raising questions with some large customers like Emirates, Etihad and Cathay.

Now some opinions on my part :
- Boeing is making a lot of noise with a potentiel 777-XF to try talking their customers out of ordering the A350-F but "they are late to the party". An XF was in their plan but not so soon.
- Launching the 777-XF before having solved the contractual turmoil there in with some -X customers may not be a good thing.
- Is the 777-XF better than the A350-F? One is the improvement of the 777 the other has been made to replace it ...

So is Boeing really going to take a new risk on a non mature programme in difficult time for them?

What would people say if Airbus solution to boost the A330neo programm was to launch a new version ?

I don’t think I said debt and loss are the same thing. They’re not.

Airbus didn’t really catch Boeing with anything. The XF was always part of the plan but let’s not forget QR said they’re in the market for new freighters, Boeing has been speaking to customers on the XF for 6 years and that’s coming from Boeing themselves.

XF was always ready whenever the market was ready to pay for it. Before covid FedEx and Boeing were speaking on the XF but it didn’t work. Boeing wanted 2025 EIS, FedEx wanted 2027 so the pricing and timing didn’t work out. It seems like it will now.

I would agree with you if Airbus actually had tianhible orders to show for “catching Boeing out like they did with the NEO series. But there’s nothing to show for it after 4 months, and things have gone rather queit.

You’re talking about Boeing making noise. So was airbus for the whole first part of the year and then Boeing had not begun to offer customers the opportunity to put money down and put pen to paper. Now they have, where’s all the noise?

Okay you’re having issues on your base platform that is already late in the development stage I.e. certification. Does that mean you cannot innovate? You cannot sell new aircraft to your customer?

It’s launching a new variant of existing program. Why is everybody acting like we didn’t know this was going to happen. It’s not like they’re launching a new program. And this non mature program is also a learning curve. It’s based on the same aircraft. The risk is minimal compared to all the other things they could be possibly doing.

Trust me if the MAX didn’t put them out of business the XF won’t.

Well, this “replacement”freighter is not showing it’s muscles at the moment.

If there was demand then YES they should launch a 330neo freighter. It would help, it’s low cost to do it. They have the money. If it will help then YES.

There is demand for the XF. Boeing did not launch the XF until there was clear demand. Akbar always spoke about it but was never ready. Cargo market is booming. Cargo carriers have extra money to spend on new aircraft. Bear in mind 777F is still selling everyday. In a cargo market like this? Airbus has not announced one order? For 4 months, we are going on 5 for an aircraft that has launched.

Leeham analaysis has the XF being overall better than the 350F. From a payload an capacity perspective. From a peer tip no but over the amount of cargo both will carry (fuel burn per tonne) they have the XF coming ontop.

Not to mention the existing Boeing infrastructure.

So this caught with pants down strategy that you discuss. So far there’s nothing to show for it.

Did Airbus not launch a350 when they will struggling to bring 380 to market? Please don’t even talk about that

Boeing has a few issues with a 777XF.

By now, Boeing expected to be well into launch deliveries. F orders at this point would be icing, as cheaper to build than the passenger version. However, there are no passenger versions in service.

In addition, X customers are asking for F's at launch prices and less.

Customers are asking to switch from passenger versions to F's.

There is a fear the X will head down the same path as the 748, with the model becoming an F success, a passenger failure, and an overall failure.

Deliveries are supposed to be less than 12 months away, yet a cone of silence in respect to finance. Perhaps Boeing Capital are financing every X? Or first deliveries are now into 2023.

smartplane wrote:

Deliveries are supposed to be less than 12 months away, yet a cone of silence in respect to finance. Perhaps Boeing Capital are financing every X? Or first deliveries are now into 2023.

Boeing has said first deliveries are late 2023 for a while now-since January.

Surely someone who has an inside track of what X customers are doing/demanding knows that?

FluidFlow wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

it might be the case that there will be 2 losers…

Also true

The "winner" will be the manufacturer that can produce it as cheap as possible by "subsidizing" it with as many pax versions as possible. I think the only freighter that was a true success without a functioning pax market is the 767. Looking at all the other true freighters, it is a very mixed picture. The 747F and 777F were produced along very successful pax aircraft and I truly think they would not have sold as many and also made as much profit if there would have been no pax version that sold multiple hundreds.

So both, the 777XF and 350F can exist but I predict they will only make money for the manufacturer if the pax version sells very vell. If not they will be produced and sold but most probably will not bring profit for the manufacturer especially when the market will be split.

With your view that the passenger model sale were why the 747F & 777F were sucessfull as they had passenger models along side freighter sales. So did the 767 that you credit as a freighter only success. It was no different as it was a 767-300 that was turned into s freighter. Without the passenger version there would be no 767F. The 767 development was well paid off when the freighter came about.

smartplane wrote:

Boeing has a few issues with a 777XF.

By now, Boeing expected to be well into launch deliveries. F orders at this point would be icing, as cheaper to build than the passenger version. However, there are no passenger versions in service.

In addition, X customers are asking for F's at launch prices and less.

Customers are asking to switch from passenger versions to F's.

There is a fear the X will head down the same path as the 748, with the model becoming an F success, a passenger failure, and an overall failure.

Deliveries are supposed to be less than 12 months away, yet a cone of silence in respect to finance. Perhaps Boeing Capital are financing every X? Or first deliveries are now into 2023.

Where are deliveries scheduled to be 12 months away? Deliveries of what?

There’s nothing wrong with customers wanting to switch to F. It at least makes the order more firm

Well with the 78F from the get go the freighter was the more demanded product. The passenger got like 50 orders. The X has 5-6 times more orders.

It’s not a rosy picture but it’s definitely a much better position

Polot wrote:

smartplane wrote:

Deliveries are supposed to be less than 12 months away, yet a cone of silence in respect to finance. Perhaps Boeing Capital are financing every X? Or first deliveries are now into 2023.

Boeing has said first deliveries are late 2023 for a while now-since January.

Surely someone who has an inside track of what X customers are doing/demanding knows that?

Correct - 24 months away - late 2023.

Would expect reporting by now of pre-shipment (milestone) finance, and at the very least RFP's for post-shipment finance if first deliveries on track. Could Boeing have offered customers the option of front ending a portion of retrospectively accrued discounts, so no money changes hands on early milestones and deliveries?

eamondzhang wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

I think the only freighter that was a true success without a functioning pax market is the 767.

A bit OT but I would say a big part of that was because of KC-46. Otherwise 767 production line would have dried up years ago (well before the recent UPS/Fedex orders of course).

On the other hands every other major freighter type does/did have pax type in their production lineups.

Michael

Mind you the freighter is based on the -300 & the KC uses the shorter -200 body. but the floor upgrades and cargo door are common parts. So it allows for both to still be produced. Boing stopper the Passenger 300, but could easily add them if a customer wanted them.

Noshow wrote:

Il-76, A400M, An-124?

the IL-76 & AN124 or mostly Russian military sales. so not much effect on global market. The A400M is a military plane so also no affect on the cargo market. The A400M has also not been an astounding success & has had lots of issues.

Noshow wrote:

The A400M legally is a commercial development program that only got converted to military use. Part of it's problems.
The Il-76 has been "neo"d and has been converted to digital design tools to be build in modern versions, mainly military.
The An-124 is in regular commercial use and has no passenger version although some military high density parachutist transport cabin configuration was developed back then.

This had been the claim above:

every other major freighter type does/did have pax type in their production lineups

Airbus has always noted the A400M was a military development, not commercial cargo plane. Thus the M that has always been in the name.

Why would anyone buy new build dedicated A350F's when they could get 2, 3, or 4 passenger conversion 777s or A330s for the same cost? I don't see Airbus successfully overcoming that obstacle. All the rest is noise.

Now, if you built a civilian optimized freighter around the TP400 engines, that might be a winner but not the A400M as is. Same reason why the BC-17 didn't get very far.

SteelChair wrote:

Why would anyone buy new build dedicated A350F's when they could get 2, 3, or 4 passenger conversion 777s or A330s for the same cost? I don't see Airbus successfully overcoming that obstacle. All the rest is noise.

Same could be said for its competitor, the 777F or XF; yet, everyone on here is convinced the latter will be a success.

Isn't it true that Airbus only announced once during it's investors meeting they started looking seriously into launching the A350F!?
AFAIK Airbus hasn't announced launching the A350F development. They are looking at the market prospects and the required development. EIS is a couple of year out after real launch.
In the past Airbus had some succes in the freighter market with their A300-600F, that program was extended on demand for freighters. The new build A330-200F wasn't a succes. It has limited range and mass capability for the ramp space it uses.
Covid cause the passenger aviation market crash, thus finally P2F programs reached acceptable cost values. AFAIK Airbus has an intrest in the ETF P2F conversions.
The feedstock for 767 conversions is running out, and 777 conversions are starting.
In first glance i thought the A350F was less logical than the A330NEO-F. But Airbus can offer the A330CEO P2F for the market that would use the A330NEO-F. The conversion also maintains after market value of A330CEO's.
The A350F serves a whole different market category. It has a much higher mass range capability. Airbus can only serve this market via the A350F and a replacement cycle for this category is coming in a couple of years.
I think Airbus favors having only the A330/A340 line running uneconomically above both the A330 and A350 line running at to low rates. Because the A350F has commonality with the A350-1000, possibly the scale of the combination could boost demand for both. Airlines were reluctant to introduce the A350-1000 on it's own.

I agree that it's newbuilds can very difficultly compete with conversions. So the 777 is a problem for the A350F and 777XF. And the A330CEO is a problem for the A330NEO.
I think there are two options for Airbus development programs after the A350F. An A210 openrotor derived from the A220, with less range. Or the successor for the A300, A330/A340's, I think this will have at least five commercial variants. But the technology and market aren't ready for both programs yet.

I wonder if Airbus will tweak the A350F towards 100t payload or give it more volume. In recent years they have been studying higher MTOW versions like A350-2000 and possibly A350-1000 Sunrise.

SteelChair wrote:

Why would anyone buy new build dedicated A350F's when they could get 2, 3, or 4 passenger conversion 777s or A330s for the same cost? I don't see Airbus successfully overcoming that obstacle. All the rest is noise.

The new-build A350F/77XF will only be for the firms that create value by flying longhaul nonstop with good loads, such as FX flying between international hubs. For them the 77W conversions will be too heavy because they are longer than 772F and weight is added during conversion. They'll also have higher fuel burn so cost more to run, have more frequent MX issues, and worse emissions.

For many others, the 77WF will be quite acceptable. They won't mind making extra stops, they are not as sensitive to time as FX et al are. They don't fly as many hours so issues like fuel burn and MX aren't quite as important. The low acquisition cost matters more than low trip cost and optimal payload/range characteristics.

All this was pointed out earlier in this thread and its predecessors. It makes it very hard to see how the market will support two factory fresh wide body freighter products.

WayexTDI wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

Why would anyone buy new build dedicated A350F's when they could get 2, 3, or 4 passenger conversion 777s or A330s for the same cost? I don't see Airbus successfully overcoming that obstacle. All the rest is noise.

Same could be said for its competitor, the 777F or XF; yet, everyone on here is convinced the latter will be a success.

Personally, I think it has a better chance of success because like I’ve said, cargo market likes to keep costs as low as possible and operations as simple as possible. The cargo market is 90% Boeing. It will have commonality with the current 777F which I think is the best selling freighter of all time. Boeing that confirmed yesterday. Airbus will have to spend big money to get their aircraft into cargo operators fleet. They might have success with operators of 350 already that have cargo operations seperately but many of them are also 777/777X customers

And because of the cargo conversion feedstock, there can only be one winner in the new build large freighter market.

In the narrow body market Boeing will have an extremely tough time clawing back market share and that’s basically at 60-40 and there are questions if they’ll ever get to 50-50 in that market and that market is more prone to switch overs. but here people think airbus will pull some magic off at 90-10?

Is the A350F going to be smaller than the 777XF and thus easier to fill?
If Revilation's statement is true:

Revelation wrote:

The new-build A350F/77XF will only be for the firms that create value by flying longhaul nonstop with good loads, such as FX flying between international hubs....

Would the demand for A350F be higher than de demand for 777XF?

And the A350F is part of the A350family. There are currently more than 400 A350's operational (in use or parked).
Some view the 777X(F) as member of the 777family but I view it as a clean-sheet (possibly the FAA and EASA as well).
If my view is taken, a 777XF could be part of a very small aircraft family, thus having high sustainment cost. No efficiency of scale.

Currently the Freighter market is 80% Boeing. But with all the Airbus aircraft going trough conversion will this remain the case!?
I don't think so. The A321F and A320F and A330-300F might be very attractive.
And I think the A350F because of it's smaller capability and larger family size, will have higher demand than de 777XF.

How many years do we expect the development will take?

Revelation wrote:

Devilfish wrote:

Revelation wrote:

As I understand it from other threads, A330F lacks enough payload/range to carry its full payload on TATL runs. It falls a bit shy of the mark for this popular route, whereas 763F with similar engines but narrower fuse and somewhat smaller does not.

The solution has been staring them in the face since the beginning...may be a tad heavier but compensates with increased capabilities.....
...

Revelation wrote:

They should realize retraining as many pilots as FX has will be expensive and FX will want some help bearing that cost. FX also runs a lot of GE engines on 777F and 767F. Retraining mechanics will also be costly.

Revelation wrote:

A330F simply hasn't gained traction in the market. It seems Airbus realizes this and is skipping over a A330NEO freighter to do a A350F.

IMO, the following comment applies not only to the A350F but to an A338F as well.....

mig17 wrote:

I read more : "great aircraft" but you (to Airbus) are expensive ...

Interesting related info from Scott Hamilton:

Airbus hasn’t had a lot of success with freighter aircraft. The end-of-life A300-600R became a dedicated freighter and some A310s were built with cargo doors. Airbus whiffed with the proposed A380F for technical reasons and a realization that loading from at the upper deck in a high wind wasn’t going to work well. The industrial delays also helped kill the A380F.

The new-build A330-200F also flopped. Only 38 were sold. (Airbus CCO) Scherer, who participated in the decision to launch this aircraft, said Airbus should have used the larger A330-300 with its greater volumetric payload as the basis for a new production airplane. The aftermarket conversion has more than 100 slots reserved at EFW, a joint venture of Airbus. Most are for the -300. IAI Bedek recently launched its own A330ceo conversion program.

Ref: https://leehamnews.com/2021/10/28/boein ... um=twitter

So Team A's CCO regrets not doing A333F instead of A32F, and the aftermarket is showing they prefer A333F conversions over A332F conversions.

A332F max payload is 46t.
If (when) A330F ports to A338, range will be helped but the range gain of the A338 versus the A332 is 7%. This is due to Trent 700 being quite good for its generation, and of course no significant wing change (338 got sharklets but the difference wasn't dramatic).

The 767-300F max payload is 47t and it has that wingspan . . .

Anyway, to compete with 77F, Airbus needs the A35J MTOW. The 322t MTOW of the Project Sunrise variant should do. If we assume 40 LD3s below (in between the A359 and A35J), that's 64t. The main deck needs to handle 36t or so to be competitive. Then we have 322t -150t OEW -64t - 36t = 72 t for fuel. Good for 11 to 12 hours. It should be competitive. But as others have said, there's the price.

CFRPwingALbody wrote:

Isn't it true that Airbus only announced once during it's investors meeting they started looking seriously into launching the A350F!?
AFAIK Airbus hasn't announced launching the A350F development. They are looking at the market prospects and the required development. EIS is a couple of year out after real launch.

Incorrect: Airbus has clearly announced - in very precise language - that they have launched the A350F program. The tittle of this tread was changed from "rumors" of a A350F to the current "Launches" title after the announcement.

You need to go back and read the previous pages in this thread to find the references.

There was quite the debate about how you could do a Launch without any orders. But, it was decided by the moderators that they would change the title to reflect what Airbus announced.

jagraham wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Devilfish wrote:

The solution has been staring them in the face since the beginning...may be a tad heavier but compensates with increased capabilities.....
...



IMO, the following comment applies not only to the A350F but to an A338F as well.....

Interesting related info from Scott Hamilton:

Airbus hasn’t had a lot of success with freighter aircraft. The end-of-life A300-600R became a dedicated freighter and some A310s were built with cargo doors. Airbus whiffed with the proposed A380F for technical reasons and a realization that loading from at the upper deck in a high wind wasn’t going to work well. The industrial delays also helped kill the A380F.

The new-build A330-200F also flopped. Only 38 were sold. (Airbus CCO) Scherer, who participated in the decision to launch this aircraft, said Airbus should have used the larger A330-300 with its greater volumetric payload as the basis for a new production airplane. The aftermarket conversion has more than 100 slots reserved at EFW, a joint venture of Airbus. Most are for the -300. IAI Bedek recently launched its own A330ceo conversion program.

Ref: https://leehamnews.com/2021/10/28/boein ... um=twitter

So Team A's CCO regrets not doing A333F instead of A32F, and the aftermarket is showing they prefer A333F conversions over A332F conversions.

A332F max payload is 46t.
If (when) A330F ports to A338, range will be helped but the range gain of the A338 versus the A332 is 7%. This is due to Trent 700 being quite good for its generation, and of course no significant wing change (338 got sharklets but the difference wasn't dramatic).

The 767-300F max payload is 47t and it has that wingspan . . .

Anyway, to compete with 77F, Airbus needs the A35J MTOW. The 322t MTOW of the Project Sunrise variant should do. If we assume 40 LD3s below (in between the A359 and A35J), that's 64t. The main deck needs to handle 36t or so to be competitive. Then we have 322t -150t OEW -64t - 36t = 72 t for fuel. Good for 11 to 12 hours. It should be competitive. But as others have said, there's the price.

A330-200F payload is slightly more than 46t; 65+t.
https://www.aircharterservice.com/aircr ... sa330-200f

A350F payload should be more in the 95-100t range.

The airbus product family has one mayor advantage over the Boeing production family. Easy conversion for pilots from one to the other family member and the option for certification for multiple types. ANA went to use this with their small A380 fleet.
So when a freighter airline has made the investment to transition they can benefit from the advantage of more flexibility in pilot scheduling. I think the A321F will be the aircraft that freighter airlines convert to first, because it replaces 757's, and has no competitor. I think Boeing will at least lose the 757, DC-10 and MD-11 portion of their market share.

CFRPwingALbody wrote:

The airbus product family has one mayor advantage over the Boeing production family. Easy conversion for pilots from one to the other family member and the option for certification for multiple types. ANA went to use this with their small A380 fleet.
So when a freighter airline has made the investment to transition they can benefit from the advantage of more flexibility in pilot scheduling. I think the A321F will be the aircraft that freighter airlines convert to first, because it replaces 757's, and has no competitor. I think Boeing will at least lose the 757, DC-10 and MD-11 portion of their market share.

well, lets see what happens

CFRPwingALbody wrote:

The airbus product family has one mayor advantage over the Boeing production family. Easy conversion for pilots from one to the other family member and the option for certification for multiple types. ANA went to use this with their small A380 fleet.
So when a freighter airline has made the investment to transition they can benefit from the advantage of more flexibility in pilot scheduling. I think the A321F will be the aircraft that freighter airlines convert to first, because it replaces 757's, and has no competitor. I think Boeing will at least lose the 757, DC-10 and MD-11 portion of their market share.

Like passenger aircraft, there doesn't have to be a direct replacement. I think we will see a lot of 738 freighters replacing 757s. Moreover, there aren't many DC-10 and MD-11 left outside of UPS and FedEx and many of those are being replaced by 767s and 777s. In fact, LH just finished replacing their MD-11s with 777Fs. So, no, Boeing doesn't look to be losing that market share.

jbs2886 wrote:

CFRPwingALbody wrote:

The airbus product family has one mayor advantage over the Boeing production family. Easy conversion for pilots from one to the other family member and the option for certification for multiple types. ANA went to use this with their small A380 fleet.
So when a freighter airline has made the investment to transition they can benefit from the advantage of more flexibility in pilot scheduling. I think the A321F will be the aircraft that freighter airlines convert to first, because it replaces 757's, and has no competitor. I think Boeing will at least lose the 757, DC-10 and MD-11 portion of their market share.

Like passenger aircraft, there doesn't have to be a direct replacement. I think we will see a lot of 738 freighters replacing 757s. Moreover, there aren't many DC-10 and MD-11 left outside of UPS and FedEx and many of those are being replaced by 767s and 777s. In fact, LH just finished replacing their MD-11s with 777Fs. So, no, Boeing doesn't look to be losing that market share.

Partially incorrect statement, the only DC-10s left in freighter operations are 10 MD-10’s at fedex which are being replaced by new built 767’s. The only other freighter MD 10 left is one at TAB cargo. As for MD-11’s it’s just FedEx, UPS, and western global. And FedEx and ups are considering replacing there entire MD-11’s with either the 777xf or A350F, hence why you see them both in talks with airbus for this aircraft.

keesje wrote:

jagraham wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Interesting related info from Scott Hamilton:


Ref: https://leehamnews.com/2021/10/28/boein ... um=twitter

So Team A's CCO regrets not doing A333F instead of A32F, and the aftermarket is showing they prefer A333F conversions over A332F conversions.

A332F max payload is 46t.
If (when) A330F ports to A338, range will be helped but the range gain of the A338 versus the A332 is 7%. This is due to Trent 700 being quite good for its generation, and of course no significant wing change (338 got sharklets but the difference wasn't dramatic).

The 767-300F max payload is 47t and it has that wingspan . . .

Anyway, to compete with 77F, Airbus needs the A35J MTOW. The 322t MTOW of the Project Sunrise variant should do. If we assume 40 LD3s below (in between the A359 and A35J), that's 64t. The main deck needs to handle 36t or so to be competitive. Then we have 322t -150t OEW -64t - 36t = 72 t for fuel. Good for 11 to 12 hours. It should be competitive. But as others have said, there's the price.

A330-200F payload is slightly more than 46t; 65+t.
https://www.aircharterservice.com/aircr ... sa330-200f

A350F payload should be more in the 95-100t range.

actually 61t per https://aircraft.airbus.com/en/aircraft ... /a330-200f

but yes, more than 46t; first source was off

Cardude2 wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

CFRPwingALbody wrote:

The airbus product family has one mayor advantage over the Boeing production family. Easy conversion for pilots from one to the other family member and the option for certification for multiple types. ANA went to use this with their small A380 fleet.
So when a freighter airline has made the investment to transition they can benefit from the advantage of more flexibility in pilot scheduling. I think the A321F will be the aircraft that freighter airlines convert to first, because it replaces 757's, and has no competitor. I think Boeing will at least lose the 757, DC-10 and MD-11 portion of their market share.

Like passenger aircraft, there doesn't have to be a direct replacement. I think we will see a lot of 738 freighters replacing 757s. Moreover, there aren't many DC-10 and MD-11 left outside of UPS and FedEx and many of those are being replaced by 767s and 777s. In fact, LH just finished replacing their MD-11s with 777Fs. So, no, Boeing doesn't look to be losing that market share.

Partially incorrect statement, the only DC-10s left in freighter operations are 10 MD-10’s at fedex which are being replaced by new built 767’s. The only other freighter MD 10 left is one at TAB cargo. As for MD-11’s it’s just FedEx, UPS, and western global. And FedEx and ups are considering replacing there entire MD-11’s with either the 777xf or A350F, hence why you see them both in talks with airbus for this aircraft.

FX has 12 active MD-10-30s left, all 10-10s have been sent to VCV. 57 active MD-11 but I don't believe that number includes the ex-LH birds recently pulled out of the desert. The 11s will be in the fleet for many more years, and the retirement of the 10s has been put on hold (again) because of lift needs.

Cardude2 wrote:

As for MD-11’s it’s just FedEx, UPS, and western global. And FedEx and ups are considering replacing there entire MD-11’s with either the 777xf or A350F, hence why you see them both in talks with airbus for this aircraft.

I don't know that we will see entire fleets replaced. From what I've learned over the years FX has drawn the MD-11s closer to home since it's hard to get MX on MD-11s worldwide. This means some probably are under-utilized, so replacement with 777XF/A350F would be expensive over-kill. You might see a smaller number of large wide bodies ordered along with 767s to really replace the MD-11s in the domestic role. Perhaps some load-juggling between hubs and various destinations would be used to re-balance the fleet. It's pretty clear that 77XF/A350F will be much more expensive than 767F or conversions so the customers will only want to use them where they can really be justified.