trex8 wrote:

Has anyone seen anywhere if the A350F will use 8 feet or 10 feet tall pallets on the main deck???
Because a quick calculation based on Cargolux website saying 21347 cuft main deck on 744, so for A350F with 12 under deck pallets at 62in high leaves you either only carrying 22 10 foot cubed pallets or 26 cubed 8 foot pallets on the main deck on the A350F and it supposedly can do 29 main deck pallets, so maybe its even a 8ft contoured pallet on main deck?

This is what I posted 3 months ago

“ I was thinking if they used the -900 forward section and -1000 rear section (symmetrical with 6 pallets in each hold) , the on the main deck 29 96x125x118 pallets

Forward Hold 6PAP/PMC or 18LD3(102m^3)
Rear Hold 6 PAP/PMC or 18LD3(102m^3)
Main deck 29 AP/PMC (557 m^3) (A350 upper lobe, i.e above floor is taller than lower lobe)

That would make it around the same volume as the 744F, and if they had a cargo density of around 9 lb/ft^3 would need a payload of around 109 tonnes.”

Bloomberg says there might be a A350F announcement soon.

https://themalaysianreserve.com/2021/11 ... ter-dubai/

keesje wrote:

Bloomberg says there might be a A350F announcement soon.

https://themalaysianreserve.com/2021/11 ... ter-dubai/

Airbus SE is set to announce a second order for its upcoming A350 freighter as soon as Friday, people familiar with the matter said, building on a debut deal at the Dubai Airshow earlier this week.

Friday, as in today or next week? I am not familiar with the journalistic nomen-culture...

keesje wrote:

Bloomberg says there might be a A350F announcement soon.

https://themalaysianreserve.com/2021/11 ... ter-dubai/

Maybe I'm adding 2+2 and getting 5. Or maybe not.

The article says that the customer is a cargo airline.
We know that RR have just undertaken to provide Silk Way with RB211s for their 747-400s until 2026.

https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/press ... pport.aspx

Why "until 2026"? Because, maybe, that's when their 747-400s will be replaced by A350s?

keesje wrote:

Bloomberg says there might be a A350F announcement soon.

https://themalaysianreserve.com/2021/11 ... ter-dubai/

The article is at best poorly written. It says that Airbus is looking to seal its 2nd sale... and then accurately says that Airbus only has an LOI at this point; which is not actually a sale.

I'd say they are looking for their 1st sale.

As for timing. Soon could be next week or next year....

4 A350F for CMA CGM.

https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2021-11-airbus-and-cma-cgm-group-sign-for-four-a350f-freighters

Great news and the 350F is slowly gaining traction. It already did its most important task, breaking the monopoly of the competitor in that segment.

Technically a MoU as well but the wording implies it is pretty firm.

2175301 wrote:

keesje wrote:

Bloomberg says there might be a A350F announcement soon.

https://themalaysianreserve.com/2021/11 ... ter-dubai/

The article is at best poorly written. It says that Airbus is looking to seal its 2nd sale... and then accurately says that Airbus only has an LOI at this point; which is not actually a sale.

I'd say they are looking for their 1st sale.

As for timing. Soon could be next week or next year....

Or 30 minutes

I assume ALC and CGM got favourable launch pricing and conditions. Apparently Cargolux is close to a decision on new aircraft. Probably a larger number. https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/cargolu ... planes?amp

I think the A350F will turn out to be a runaway sucess, relatively speaking. I also think that Boeing is still not very close to launching their competitor, judging from statements such as they was still looking at the best lenght of the fuselage, whether Boeing should increase the lenght compared with what was originally intended. I think they are struggling to match the excellent performance of the A350F, in both max payload, payload at range, and volume. I think that the expression "pick two" (of those three) probably is very fitting for what Boeing now struggles with.

keesje wrote:

2175301 wrote:

keesje wrote:

Bloomberg says there might be a A350F announcement soon.

https://themalaysianreserve.com/2021/11 ... ter-dubai/

The article is at best poorly written. It says that Airbus is looking to seal its 2nd sale... and then accurately says that Airbus only has an LOI at this point; which is not actually a sale.

I'd say they are looking for their 1st sale.

As for timing. Soon could be next week or next year....

Or 30 minutes

I assume ALC and CGM got favourable launch pricing and conditions. Apparently Cargolux is close to a decision on new aircraft. Probably a larger number. https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/cargolu ... planes?amp

You consider a MOU and a LOI as sales?

I don't, nor do I think many others do.

SteinarN wrote:

I think the A350F will turn out to be a runaway sucess, relatively speaking. I also think that Boeing is still not very close to launching their competitor, judging from statements such as they was still looking at the best lenght of the fuselage, whether Boeing should increase the lenght compared with what was originally intended. I think they are struggling to match the excellent performance of the A350F, in both max payload, payload at range, and volume. I think that the expression "pick two" (of those three) probably is very fitting for what Boeing now struggles with.

IMO the success of the A350F is to keep Boeing at bay so they wont have the means to launch anything else e.g. NSA

MrBren wrote:

4 A350F for CMA CGM.

https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2021-11-airbus-and-cma-cgm-group-sign-for-four-a350f-freighters

https://www.cma-cgm.com/news/3963/airfr ... -air-cargo says they will have 4 A332F, 2 772F and 4 A350F, a real a.net dream lineup.

2175301 wrote:

You consider a MOU and a LOI as sales?

I don't, nor do I think many others do.

I could only imagine what we'd be reading if 77XF launched with 7 LOI and 4 MOU.

Revelation wrote:

MrBren wrote:

4 A350F for CMA CGM.

https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2021-11-airbus-and-cma-cgm-group-sign-for-four-a350f-freighters

https://www.cma-cgm.com/news/3963/airfr ... -air-cargo says they will have 4 A332F, 2 772F and 4 A350F, a real a.net dream lineup.

2175301 wrote:

You consider a MOU and a LOI as sales?

I don't, nor do I think many others do.

I could only imagine what we'd be reading if 77XF launched with 7 LOI and 4 MOU.

11 potential sales is 11 more than what the 77XF has….

keesje wrote:

2175301 wrote:

I assume ALC and CGM got favourable launch pricing and conditions. Apparently Cargolux is close to a decision on new aircraft. Probably a larger number. https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/cargolu ... planes?amp

Given that Cargolux operates a fleet of 22 aircraft, what do you consider to be a "larger number"?

David

Again most important thing is that one manufacturer broke a monopoly. I find it astounding that some posters judge the success by the sales so far which is amusing and tbh quite salty.

diverdave wrote:

keesje wrote:

2175301 wrote:

I assume ALC and CGM got favourable launch pricing and conditions. Apparently Cargolux is close to a decision on new aircraft. Probably a larger number. https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/cargolu ... planes?amp

Given that Cargolux operates a fleet of 22 aircraft, what do you consider to be a "larger number"?

David

I did not write what you are quoting: I suspect that you edited the post wrong (I've made that mistake in the past).

I have no idea what the other poster considers a "larger number"

diverdave wrote:

keesje wrote:

I assume ALC and CGM got favourable launch pricing and conditions. Apparently Cargolux is close to a decision on new aircraft. Probably a larger number. https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/cargolu ... planes?amp

Given that Cargolux operates a fleet of 22 aircraft, what do you consider to be a "larger number"?

David

Great question, it has to come down to how they will use the tool based on range and density requirements.
+replacement: they have 10 non-er 744Fs, eight of which have an average age of ~19yrs
+growth
+using the a350f to open routes that are marginally economical with other tools
-tempered by Cargolux's risk aversion and long term sustainability views

10 is the number I had been forecasting before airbus quoted specs that were density superior and volume inferior to my estimations
do the improved specs plus up the forecast?, they certainly reduce the chance of Cargolux tilting 777XF

but your right an order/options ~10-16 remains tepid compared to program order expectations. The prevailing thought was that 5X would be the marquee order at ~25 +~25options.
Qatar not launching the XF because they did not want to supplement credibility to a UAE event, tempered the need for Airbus to allude/LOI the 5X order.

Revelation wrote:

2175301 wrote:

You consider a MOU and a LOI as sales?

I don't, nor do I think many others do.

I could only imagine what we'd be reading if 77XF launched with 7 LOI and 4 MOU.

You forget that Airbus already launched the A350F; I believe in July without any orders, MOUs or LOIs.

At the same time I suspect that we will not hear anything from Boeing until they have actual orders in hand.

Even if Boeing is not signing MOUs and LOIs I do believe that they have at least as many potential sales as the A350 has at this time.

The origianl Airbus announcement was, if not publically named as such, an ATO - Authority to Offer, implying that the project had passed various critical internal review steps and been deemed worthy of presentation to potential customers. The LOI and MOU deals imply that commercial terms and conditions (price/spec/delivery dates) have been broadly agreed. Contractual negotiations will continue with a view to completing these as firm contracts. It suggests that Airbus management are intent on building the aircraft. There is probably a minimum number of commitments and or customers (still) to be reached.

As for the 777XF, Boeing will be out there persuading candidate airlines that they will have a better moustrap and the A350F should be cold shouldered. Given the prolonged antagonism between Airbus and Qatar, a significant launch 777XF order must be odds-on. Probably a double-digit number as AAB likes to make headlines.

Wildlander wrote:

The origianl Airbus announcement was, if not publically named as such, an ATO - Authority to Offer

The big difference between an ATO and a launch is, that a launch releases the money for the development of the aircraft.

This means there is a budget and a development team since July. This team does not only work on the project alone, due to the official launch by the board, they are able to make contracts with subcontractors in the supply chain, order equipment for development and production and last but not least, have the budget to build prototypes.

KR Jörg

Wildlander wrote:

The origianl Airbus announcement was, if not publically named as such, an ATO - Authority to Offer, implying that the project had passed various critical internal review steps and been deemed worthy of presentation to potential customers. The LOI and MOU deals imply that commercial terms and conditions (price/spec/delivery dates) have been broadly agreed. Contractual negotiations will continue with a view to completing these as firm contracts. It suggests that Airbus management are intent on building the aircraft. There is probably a minimum number of commitments and or customers (still) to be reached.

I agree. I just don't understand why they are describing things as launches when they are not launches, and orders when they are not orders. It reeks of a certain kind of desperation to me at least, hyping things to the max (ahem!) when they don't need to be. If they have a solid product and are confident orders will come, why not just the accepted terms ATO, LOI and MOU? They are quite clear and concise, and have been developed over decades of industry experience. And I'm not making this A vs B, IMO B will gladly follow such loosening of terminology if it becomes the standard.

Wildlander wrote:

The origianl Airbus announcement was, if not publically named as such, an ATO - Authority to Offer, implying that the project had passed various critical internal review steps and been deemed worthy of presentation to potential customers. The LOI and MOU deals imply that commercial terms and conditions (price/spec/delivery dates) have been broadly agreed. Contractual negotiations will continue with a view to completing these as firm contracts. It suggests that Airbus management are intent on building the aircraft. There is probably a minimum number of commitments and or customers (still) to be reached.

As for the 777XF, Boeing will be out there persuading candidate airlines that they will have a better moustrap and the A350F should be cold shouldered. Given the prolonged antagonism between Airbus and Qatar, a significant launch 777XF order must be odds-on. Probably a double-digit number as AAB likes to make headlines.

The original title of this thread was something along the line of "Roomers of an A350F..."

Based on the wording of the Board of Director's statement, including an EIS date of I believe 2025, and various clamoring on this site backing it up the Mods changed the tittle to ""launches the..."

I cannot see how Airbus could set an EIS date on just an "Authority to Offer."

A number of people, including myself, argued that how can you have a launch without any orders. Other people defended that and pointed out that there was at least 1 historical precedent.

I'm not buying you explanation of the July announcement being an ATO. The wording was very specific that it was a "Launch" along with an EIS.

From a personal viewpoint: I think that Airbus has the cart before the horse... and I'm not even sure that its tethered to the horse at this point. I may be wrong, and time will tell.

I also agree that while MOUs and LOIs can be done, there is no reason to hype them. As far as I can tell they often get modified before a final contract is signed, and some never turn into a contract.

It's like counting your future children based on an agreement to have sex.

Revelation wrote:

I agree. I just don't understand why they are describing things as launches when they are not launches, and orders when they are not orders. It reeks of a certain kind of desperation to me at least, hyping things to the max (ahem!) when they don't need to be. If they have a solid product and are confident orders will come, why not just the accepted terms ATO, LOI and MOU? They are quite clear and concise, and have been developed over decades of industry experience. And I'm not making this A vs B, IMO B will gladly follow such loosening of terminology if it becomes the standard.

It seems you are making this AvB, the criticism is unwarranted.

Airbus launched the A320NEO in the same way they launched the A350F, the board gave the go ahead for development.

For decades we have airshow after airshow where any form of deal was announced as an order. These airship deals are normally an agreement in principle, it then takes some time for the customers to nut out the customer options, engines, interior, and financing. It doesn’t detract from the agreement being in place.

Back in 2013 when EK ordered the 150 77X, it wasn’t an order, it was just an agreement in principle. I do t remeber any tripe back then of people complaining it was not an order.

It should also be known that ALC is the only lessor that has the 350-1000 on order. Whether they’ve placed all of them I don’t know.

But I think it says that airbus knows where to go when it wants support

Revelation wrote:

MrBren wrote:

4 A350F for CMA CGM.

https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2021-11-airbus-and-cma-cgm-group-sign-for-four-a350f-freighters

https://www.cma-cgm.com/news/3963/airfr ... -air-cargo says they will have 4 A332F, 2 772F and 4 A350F, a real a.net dream lineup.

Will Air Belgium operate them all ?

One can argue for years about what is or isn't an order, what s sure now after DAS2021 is that A350F does have interest from customer and Airbus is commited to build it.

The first OEM to claim the segment gains a big advantage to basically take it all, and Airbus did a nice move in this directon.
If the next twist in the newgen-widebody-freighter-saga goes again in the Airbus direction I'm not sure the competition will have enough to continue (start?) fighting for the segment.

Grizzly410 wrote:

The first OEM to claim the segment gains a big advantage to basically take it all, and Airbus did a nice move in this directon.

So the other poster comment on Airbus breaking a monopoly is incorrect as you seem to be saying this is a new market?

Fantastic news! The program is now very much launched and we've got two customers signing on the dotted line. I very much look forwards to where the goalposts will be moved next! I wonder if someone is going to go full Richard Aboulafia and start arguing that the customers aren't "Blue Chip" enough.

Revelation wrote:

https://www.cma-cgm.com/news/3963/airfr ... -air-cargo says they will have 4 A332F, 2 772F and 4 A350F, a real a.net dream lineup.

Hopefully to be joined by a handful of A330-300P2Fs in the coming years.

Revelation wrote:

Wildlander wrote:

The origianl Airbus announcement was, if not publically named as such, an ATO - Authority to Offer, implying that the project had passed various critical internal review steps and been deemed worthy of presentation to potential customers. The LOI and MOU deals imply that commercial terms and conditions (price/spec/delivery dates) have been broadly agreed. Contractual negotiations will continue with a view to completing these as firm contracts. It suggests that Airbus management are intent on building the aircraft. There is probably a minimum number of commitments and or customers (still) to be reached.

I agree. I just don't understand why they are describing things as launches when they are not launches, and orders when they are not orders. It reeks of a certain kind of desperation to me at least, hyping things to the max (ahem!) when they don't need to be. If they have a solid product and are confident orders will come, why not just the accepted terms ATO, LOI and MOU? They are quite clear and concise, and have been developed over decades of industry experience. And I'm not making this A vs B, IMO B will gladly follow such loosening of terminology if it becomes the standard.

All stages in the order process.

In a large order, tranche 1 may be an unconditional order, tranches 2 and 3 may be conditional, and 4 plus may be MOU.

What about 'orders' where milestone payments have been suspended for more than 2 years, there are no firm delivery dates, customers have uncapped compensation agreements, no pre-delivery and post-delivery finance has been arranged, and no contracted performance guarantees?

I really don't get all this quibbling about LOI vs MOU vs order and when is a launch not a launch?

Does anyone seriously doubt that the A350F will fly? And, when it does, isn't that a GOOD THING for aviation enthusiasts?

PM wrote:

I really don't get all this quibbling about LOI vs MOU vs order and when is a launch not a launch?

Does anyone seriously doubt that the A350F will fly? And, when it does, isn't that a GOOD THING for aviation enthusiasts?

Good question, but it's never strsightforward. Look at all the posts against the A330neo for instance. Sure, the A380 was a financial disaster but Im glad it was built.

No one could have predicted a pandemic. But, it will pass. Whatever happens with the 777X Im glad it was built too.

PM wrote:

I really don't get all this quibbling about LOI vs MOU vs order and when is a launch not a launch?

Does anyone seriously doubt that the A350F will fly? And, when it does, isn't that a GOOD THING for aviation enthusiasts?

It's called downplaying, slightly predictable.


Airbus

PM wrote:

I really don't get all this quibbling about LOI vs MOU vs order and when is a launch not a launch?

Does anyone seriously doubt that the A350F will fly? And, when it does, isn't that a GOOD THING for aviation enthusiasts?

IMO there is reasonable doubt till a sufficient number of contracts are signed. As mentioned above, it is probable that there are order targets that must be hit before they are authorized to move beyond initial R&D and into early production and test. Given this aircraft will require a significant R&D budget, I don't think seven potential orders is enough to move forward with. On Page 1 of this 30+ page thread, it was suggested that fifty orders would be needed.

Every aircraft proposal is a good thing to aviation enthusiasts. Not all proposals result in the production of aircraft. That's a big part of the reason why we have a discussion forum, IMO.

Launching and developing without large firm orders might indicate confidence, entrepreneurship and guts.

The reference you need launching orders covering much of the investment from the start might indicate something else.

W'll see what is most successful.

Revelation wrote:

IMO there is reasonable doubt till a sufficient number of contracts are signed. As mentioned above, it is probable that there are order targets that must be hit before they are authorized to move beyond initial R&D and into early production and test. Given this aircraft will require a significant R&D budget, I don't think seven potential orders is enough to move forward with. On Page 1 of this 30+ page thread, it was suggested that fifty orders would be needed.

Every aircraft proposal is a good thing to aviation enthusiasts. Not all proposals result in the production of aircraft. That's a big part of the reason why we have a discussion forum, IMO.

I think they will build it regardless of what commitments it has. It’ a new market that they are tying to get a foothold in, and they have played this game before introducing a new product into a market dominated by one or two very large players. And let’s be honest, they have succeeded more times than they have failed when attempting this

It’s also has the potential to help Airbus produce larger, heavier variants of the A350 should the market in the next decade dictate their need. Not to mention aiding in the development of new flight systems such as single pilot operation. A freighter would seem to be the logical place to test such a new technology and gather data for its eventual certification. So why not?

I also think 50 is a little high, if they end up selling 50 in total I would call it a successful project for them as they will have well and truly established themselves in a new market segment. Finally by getting there first, and offering competition, they are going to significantly hinder their competitors effort to make their own product profitable.

Revelation wrote:

PM wrote:

I really don't get all this quibbling about LOI vs MOU vs order and when is a launch not a launch?

Does anyone seriously doubt that the A350F will fly? And, when it does, isn't that a GOOD THING for aviation enthusiasts?

IMO there is reasonable doubt till a sufficient number of contracts are signed. As mentioned above, it is probable that there are order targets that must be hit before they are authorized to move beyond initial R&D and into early production and test. Given this aircraft will require a significant R&D budget, I don't think seven potential orders is enough to move forward with. On Page 1 of this 30+ page thread, it was suggested that fifty orders would be needed.

Every aircraft proposal is a good thing to aviation enthusiasts. Not all proposals result in the production of aircraft. That's a big part of the reason why we have a discussion forum, IMO.

While I agree the start is slow, like really slow. The prospects is not that bad. There are 300+ 747F in service, is the A350F gets 30% of that market it is already 100 frames. Which should be ok for the business case.
But I do believe they need some (2-3) double digit order to seal the deal in the confidence department...

Revelation wrote:

IMO there is reasonable doubt till a sufficient number of contracts are signed. As mentioned above, it is probable that there are order targets that must be hit before they are authorized to move beyond initial R&D and into early production and test. Given this aircraft will require a significant R&D budget, I don't think seven potential orders is enough to move forward with. On Page 1 of this 30+ page thread, it was suggested that fifty orders would be needed.

I hear what you are saying but it seems to me there is zero chance of Airbus pulling back now. This time last week, they had no commitments,. Now they have commitments (OK, LOI, MOU, whatever) from two entities.

Moreover, S U-H has spoken.

But, after talks with “half a dozen” large airlines, “it was pretty obvious that the [A350F] was a good airplane”, he says. “Finally, Airbus had all the ingredients for a successful dedicated [freighter]”.

https://www.flightglobal.com/fleets/boe ... 77.article

The A350F is going to happen and I suspect it's going to do well.

keesje wrote:

Launching and developing without large firm orders might indicate confidence, entrepreneurship and guts.

The reference you need launching orders covering much of the investment from the start might indicate something else.

W'll see what is most successful.

Launching A380 showed a case where confidence, entrepreneurship and guts triumphed over solid market analysis.

W'll see what is most successful.

G'day

Revelation wrote:

IMO there is reasonable doubt till a sufficient number of contracts are signed. As mentioned above, it is probable that there are order targets that must be hit before they are authorized to move beyond initial R&D and into early production and test. Given this aircraft will require a significant R&D budget, I don't think seven potential orders is enough to move forward with. On Page 1 of this 30+ page thread, it was suggested that fifty orders would be needed.

We are still early into this as likely many cargo airlines are likely wanting to compare the A and B offerings. Airbus appears to have a clear concept having provided solid and likely guaranteed technical specifications and entry into service data. Boeing is still floating different payloads, usable volumes and entry into service data, far from being close to a defined product. Entry into service of the base 777X version in 2024 is also not quite set in stone. I assume even hardcore Boeing operators are having a close look at the the A350F offering now. While ending up with a somewhat lower payload or usable volume or both the A350F may still be the better overall proposition considering price and availability.

As for moving ahead now without firm orders that is a bold, calculated risk, but the potential rewards may well be worth it. The cost to bring it to market likely is substantial, but not excessive considering the present and future potential. The market for the A350F definitely exists, earlier availability and likely lower purchase and operating costs in comparison to whatever Boeing will settle on will help. As I previously stated, interesting times ahead...

Cheers

Peter

I don't think the start is slow at all. A year ago nobody was talking A350F. Boeing freighter dominance & maybe an A330F NEO were topics.

Then A350F popped up, was launched and now customers are commiting. While the competitor didn't even have time to publicly dismiss it & is reviewing timeslines.

keesje wrote:

PM wrote:

I really don't get all this quibbling about LOI vs MOU vs order and when is a launch not a launch?

Does anyone seriously doubt that the A350F will fly? And, when it does, isn't that a GOOD THING for aviation enthusiasts?

It's called downplaying, slightly predictable.


Airbus

Well, lets be honest... when this thread was begun... it really was really just an authority to offer.... there was not a launch customer....

Now we have a Launch Customer who has only signed a LoI, not a firm order, and only 7 at that. It would be nice to see more backing...

Skepticism is appropriate becuase in all fairness the A380F was launched with many more firm orders from actual shippers.

I DO believe the A350F will be produced and will secure enough orders to be modestly profitable over it's life (so I'm no hater, let's establish that). However, I don't fault those who remain a bit skeptical. Past history and present evidence suggest that caution is in order. As a fan of aviation, well selfishly. I hope it's built. (I also hope that the 777XF is built as well, so I'm aware I'm hoping for two frames to be produced in a tight somewhat limited market space that will reduce sales and profit for each manufacturer... I own that...)

BTW, That's a nice photo. I'd really like to see one of those skeletal drawings where we can clearly visualize how the separte 900/1000 bits come together to build this A350-950F.

Ertro wrote:

There is no indication that Airbus performs these kind of stunts.

There most certainly is: The A380 Amedeo "order" for 20 A380's.

Only years later did it become known that this was only a marketing option that if Amedeo found people willing to long term lease an A380 that Amedeo had an option to purchase up to 20 A380's for such leases.

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

Well, lets be honest... when this thread was begun... it really was really just an authority to offer.... there was not a launch customer....

Now we have a Launch Customer who has only signed a LoI, not a firm order, and only 7 at that. It would be nice to see more backing....

Sorry: This thread began about 8 months ago with a "roomer" tittle based on reports that Airbus was looking to challenge the 777F sized freighter market with an A350F. The thread ran for months on speculation and various comparisons.

Then I believe in July (please someone correct me if I'm wrong) which is 4 months ago Airbus announced that they had launched the A350F program with I believe a 2025 EIS (with no orders, MOUs or LOIs) and the Mods changed the tittle to the current "Airbus launches A350 freighter"

There are no indications that this was just an authority to offer; and the specific wording from Airbus was very specific that the program was launched. Airbus has launched at least on previous successful aircraft program with no orders like this. Airbus has also in the past had programs where the Board authorized the ability to offer and see what kind of interest there was (ATO's don't come with EIS Dates as the idea may have to be massaged to get enough interest). These are vastly different concepts - and I see no reason to think that the Board of Directors would make such a mistake.

Now we have a LOI and a MOU; but even if they turn into orders - they are not launch orders as theA350F program was launched in I believe July of this year.

I am looking forward to seeing the A350F roll out and enter into service in 2025 (with perhaps a slight delay).

2175301 wrote:

Ertro wrote:

There is no indication that Airbus performs these kind of stunts.

There most certainly is: The A380 Amedeo "order" for 20 A380's.

Only years later did it become known that this was only a marketing option that if Amedeo found people willing to long term lease an A380 that Amedeo had an option to purchase up to 20 A380's for such leases.

Yep, stunt indeed. That Amedeo "order" stayed on the books for many years and was made to disappear into thin air at Airbus's convenience.

I'd like to think the current regime is better than the baloney castle era one, but this launch without orders and orders without signed contracts stuff makes me think they are not.

Reality is, the CEO stated the 350F is coming, the first LOI and MOI are signed (signed as a binding contract btw). I just hope Airbus sticks to the stated EIS in 2025.

https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/pres ... freighters

Revelation wrote:

2175301 wrote:

Ertro wrote:

There is no indication that Airbus performs these kind of stunts.

There most certainly is: The A380 Amedeo "order" for 20 A380's.

Only years later did it become known that this was only a marketing option that if Amedeo found people willing to long term lease an A380 that Amedeo had an option to purchase up to 20 A380's for such leases.

Yep, stunt indeed. That Amedeo "order" stayed on the books for many years and was made to disappear into thin air at Airbus's convenience.

I'd like to think the current regime is better than the baloney castle era one, but this launch without orders and orders without signed contracts stuff makes me think they are not.

I disagree in that I fully accept that Airbus has officially launched the A350F. That allows them to fund an official development program (vs and R&D program) and start designing and ordering unique parts; which is needed if they are going to make the 2025 EIS.

I note that Boeing took an R&D track on the MOM (projected 797) and obviously spent a $Billion+ working to refine the potential market and look at not just aircraft design but also production systems to reduce production cost (the later is applicable to many future programs); and had gotten quotes from multiple engine vendors. I'm guessing that they had at least 100 engineers + managers working on the project for considerable time before they were supposedly ready to ask the Board of Directors for an Authorization To Offer in spring 2000; which did not happen due to the 737Max crises (it was never formally offered, and not launched). Then the fallout from the 737Max seems to have ended the program as apparently they have to revisit cockpit design philosophy and develop a new cockpit to meet post 737Max standards - even if those standards were not yet set. My understanding is that the MOM program is currently suspended and there are no current plans to even ask for ATO; and that there is a skeleton crew poking at the concept should things change in the future. My personal past source on the project is no longer assigned to it.

But, Airbus has launched before without orders; and it does make sense. So I believe the summer launch is real.

I'm disappointed that they could not come up with actual orders instead of LOIs and MOUs. Boeing also uses LOIs and MOUs; but it sure seems like they don't hype them as much (and that the press and others on A--net do not hype them as much).

I agree that both of those may be shaky... LOIs and MOUs are by there very nature at least somewhat shaky as my research shows that what gets ordered in the end is often at least somewhat different than the LOI and MOU, and sometimes vastly different or there never is an order.

However, given Airbus's previous history of claiming major progress where there was none... It's fair to be skeptical at this time.

I'm going to look at what is ordered within 60 days for the LOI and 90 days for the MOU. After that amount of time the chances of them being converted to orders is fairly low.

ABMUC wrote:

Reality is, the CEO stated the 350F is coming, the first LOI and MOI are signed (signed as a binding contract btw). I just hope Airbus sticks to the stated EIS in 2025.

https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/pres ... freighters

Neither an LOI or an MOU is an order and while they are binding... they are not binding in a way that commits the airline to order any aircraft; or for Airbus to deliver one.

An Letter of Intent (LOI) is just an agreement saying that we will continue to negotiate for the purchase of... and is usually used when there is a base understanding that the Airline/Lessor wants to order a specific aircraft for the price range quoted but needs to work out additional details before a purchase contract is signed (engine selection, version, interior fittings, schedule, etc.). Most LOIs do result in eventual order for the aircraft; but, there is often changes in the number of aircraft and delivery schedules from when the LOI was announced. Sometimes key factors change or details don't work out and there is no actual order resulting from an LOI. But, both the Airline and the Aircraft Manufacturer will have spent time continuing to actually try to negotiate a purchase contract.

A Memo of Understanding is more of an "we are interested" and wish to further seriously discuss a possible purchase, and the binding commitment is to have those further discussions. MOUs are much weaker than an LOI, and far more never get converted to some kind of order than for LOIs.

While I personally believe that Airbus intends to build the A350; neither the LOI or the MOU is a committed order. Also, even if there were an actual orders at this time; with binding terms that does not mean that the airlines/lessors will always take possession of the aircraft as things do change and some orders get renegotiated or canceled.

I have thoughts that Boeing 'teased' Airbus with the timing of this recent launch. If Boeing is in discussion with say UPS and FedEX over what they really want in a new build freighter, as well as the other current operators to optimize the 77xF for the current and predicted market, it may not hurt Boeing in terms of large orders holding off for a year or two.

In this case, Boeing would enjoy competing against the frozen specification of the A350, the ability to adjust things to be better in this, better in that kind of thing.

JayinKitsap wrote:

I have thoughts that Boeing 'teased' Airbus with the timing of this recent launch. If Boeing is in discussion with say UPS and FedEX over what they really want in a new build freighter, as well as the other current operators to optimize the 77xF for the current and predicted market, it may not hurt Boeing in terms of large orders holding off for a year or two.

In this case, Boeing would enjoy competing against the frozen specification of the A350, the ability to adjust things to be better in this, better in that kind of thing.

Any company making decisions based on being teased would be out of Business.