tommy1808 wrote:

And a 744F replacement for customers not needing the nose door.

best regards
Thomas

Noticed this in a Leeham article https://leehamnews.com/2021/11/11/airbu ... fications/

“ The extra-large maindeck cargo door is placed behind the wing so that the loading of cargo can’t make the aircraft sit on its tail (pallets are moved to the front before the rear is filled up).”

I wonder if it’s going to be 5+m wide?

zeke wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

And a 744F replacement for customers not needing the nose door.

best regards
Thomas

Noticed this in a Leeham article https://leehamnews.com/2021/11/11/airbu ... fications/

“ The extra-large maindeck cargo door is placed behind the wing so that the loading of cargo can’t make the aircraft sit on its tail (pallets are moved to the front before the rear is filled up).”

I wonder if it’s going to be 5+m wide?

This aircraft will compete vs. the 77xF and 77F. How many of the 77F have ever been loaded erroneously to the point they wound up sitting on their tail? Has this ever happened? Isn't that why the 77F cargo door is also...behind the wing?

zeke wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

And a 744F replacement for customers not needing the nose door.

best regards
Thomas

Noticed this in a Leeham article https://leehamnews.com/2021/11/11/airbu ... fications/

“ The extra-large maindeck cargo door is placed behind the wing so that the loading of cargo can’t make the aircraft sit on its tail (pallets are moved to the front before the rear is filled up).”

I wonder if it’s going to be 5+m wide?

The cargo door will be 3.7-m wide and 3.14-m high and, unusually, will be positioned at the rear.

https://aviationweek.com/shownews/dubai ... load-a350f

thats really no different to the 777F

zeke wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

And a 744F replacement for customers not needing the nose door.

best regards
Thomas

Noticed this in a Leeham article https://leehamnews.com/2021/11/11/airbu ... fications/

“ The extra-large maindeck cargo door is placed behind the wing so that the loading of cargo can’t make the aircraft sit on its tail (pallets are moved to the front before the rear is filled up).”

I wonder if it’s going to be 5+m wide?

It may not be the most reliable clue but the Figure 2 in the same article depicts a door slightly wider than the one of the 777F.

Another interesting feature according to Aviation Week is:

A position over the center wingbox will be able to hold a 30-ton pallet.

I don't know whether all the large freighters are capable of this or not. I was thinking it might be a useful feature to transport heavy military equipment's especially when combined with a wide door. Good for cargo airlines chartering planes for the US Army for example. Or as a basis of a future MRTT.

https://aviationweek.com/shownews/dubai-airshow/dubai-airshow-memo-airbus-aims-109-ton-payload-a350f

tomcat wrote:

zeke wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

And a 744F replacement for customers not needing the nose door.

best regards
Thomas

Noticed this in a Leeham article https://leehamnews.com/2021/11/11/airbu ... fications/

“ The extra-large maindeck cargo door is placed behind the wing so that the loading of cargo can’t make the aircraft sit on its tail (pallets are moved to the front before the rear is filled up).”

I wonder if it’s going to be 5+m wide?

It may not be the most reliable clue but the Figure 2 in the same article depicts a door slightly wider than the one of the 777F.

Another interesting feature according to Aviation Week is:

A position over the center wingbox will be able to hold a 30-ton pallet.

I don't know whether all the large freighters are capable of this or not. I was thinking it might be a useful feature to transport heavy military equipment's especially when combined with a wide door. Good for cargo airlines chartering planes for the US Army for example. Or as a basis of a future MRTT.

https://aviationweek.com/shownews/dubai-airshow/dubai-airshow-memo-airbus-aims-109-ton-payload-a350f

A350-900MRTT, Genius!

texl1649 wrote:

This aircraft will compete vs. the 77xF and 77F. How many of the 77F have ever been loaded erroneously to the point they wound up sitting on their tail? Has this ever happened? Isn't that why the 77F cargo door is also...behind the wing?

It’s happened on the 747 and MD11 many times.

trex8 wrote:

thats really no different to the 777F

Yes I agree, first time I have seen the dimensions listed in that article.

reidar76 wrote:

Existing 747F operators is good choice for the A350F sales team. Remember that the oldest 777F will be over 20 years old by the time the first A350F takes to the skies. I reckon the 777F will face environmental operating restrictions, both due to extreme noise from the GE90 engines and from the high fuel consumption. There is a reason last delivery will be in 2027.

Some airlines only leases their 777F, and there is a functioning used market for 777F. Lufthansa recently got ex-Emirates 777F, as an example. Airfrance 777F leases expires in the a favorable timeframe for the A350F etc. Yes, it's only two frames, but a good example for a possible A350F sale.

Extended singel pilot cruise and fellowfly for the A350 are both scheduled for 2025 certification. The 777F will have a shorter life than freighters traditionally have had, I think.

Sorry but have to correct you here, the first 777F was delivered in February 2009. I do however agree that a 747 operator that doesn't use the nose cargo door that often could use the A350F. iirc Singapore Airlines doesn't use the nose cargo door that often.

LTEN11 wrote:

So, lets go through that list:

* China Cargo/China Eastern : Another existing 777F operator, as well as 77W. Doubtful.
* Emirates : Another 777F operator, who has just ordered 2 more and has 77W's being converted. Don't operate the 350 yet by the way. Not likely.
* Etihad : Another 777F operator. Highly unlikely, they just aren't in a position to order anything extra. Only possibility would be if they converted some existing orders for 350-1000, don't think that involves ALC,
so no.
* Air France : Their cargo fleet consists of precisely 2 777F. As long as they operate their fleet of 77W's there is fleet commonality just as much as there would be with the 350's. Highly doubtful.
* Air China Cargo : Another large 777F operator who also operates 77W. Not likely.

So following this logic, why did any of those airlines order A350 passenger aircraft when they could have ordered (more) 77L/77Ws instead?

zkojq wrote:

LTEN11 wrote:

So, lets go through that list:

* China Cargo/China Eastern : Another existing 777F operator, as well as 77W. Doubtful.
* Emirates : Another 777F operator, who has just ordered 2 more and has 77W's being converted. Don't operate the 350 yet by the way. Not likely.
* Etihad : Another 777F operator. Highly unlikely, they just aren't in a position to order anything extra. Only possibility would be if they converted some existing orders for 350-1000, don't think that involves ALC,
so no.
* Air France : Their cargo fleet consists of precisely 2 777F. As long as they operate their fleet of 77W's there is fleet commonality just as much as there would be with the 350's. Highly doubtful.
* Air China Cargo : Another large 777F operator who also operates 77W. Not likely.

So following this logic, why did any of those airlines order A350 passenger aircraft when they could have ordered (more) 77L/77Ws instead?

Well theres a 77W and 77F operator who has 18 744Fs to replace. They also have 14 A359s.
I'll bet CI will buy a few more 77Fs but the bulk of their 744F replacement will be A359Fs

Just checked and Singapore airlines has 7 747-400F’s in need of replacement https://www.planespotters.net/airline/S ... e-Airlines

Other options from alc’s current customer base https://airleasecorp.com/customers

National airlines because they own there current a330’s and it’s the airbus in their fleet and they want to expand cargo ops

Air France: their 777fs will be coming off lease when these planes will be delivered

Malaysia airlines: expansion

spicexpress. (Spice jet subsidiary): expansion/replacement of phreighter a340

Starlux: competition

Titan: expansion

In my opinion; I'd be a little careful about claiming that everyone who owns a 744F needs to replace it. Yes someday; but that could easily be 15 - 20+ years from now.

Unless they are a pure freight company... the airline may get out out of the freighter business entirely in that time-frame. Many other airlines have gotten rid of their historical freighter fleet

zeke wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

This aircraft will compete vs. the 77xF and 77F. How many of the 77F have ever been loaded erroneously to the point they wound up sitting on their tail? Has this ever happened? Isn't that why the 77F cargo door is also...behind the wing?

It’s happened on the 747 and MD11 many times.

trex8 wrote:

thats really no different to the 777F

Yes I agree, first time I have seen the dimensions listed in that article.

The only reason a 747 or MD-11 or any other cargo aircraft has ended up on it's arse is because some dufus didn't follow the correct process in loading or unloading, the door location was irrelevant.

LTEN11 wrote:

zeke wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

This aircraft will compete vs. the 77xF and 77F. How many of the 77F have ever been loaded erroneously to the point they wound up sitting on their tail? Has this ever happened? Isn't that why the 77F cargo door is also...behind the wing?

It’s happened on the 747 and MD11 many times.

trex8 wrote:

thats really no different to the 777F

Yes I agree, first time I have seen the dimensions listed in that article.

The only reason a 747 or MD-11 or any other cargo aircraft has ended up on it's arse is because some dufus didn't follow the correct process in loading or unloading, the door location was irrelevant.

Unfortunately dufus’s (dufi?) still exist and still work for airlines and will in the future. Making it impossible to tip by design is much better than preventing tipping by procedure.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

zkojq wrote:

LTEN11 wrote:

So, lets go through that list:

* China Cargo/China Eastern : Another existing 777F operator, as well as 77W. Doubtful.
* Emirates : Another 777F operator, who has just ordered 2 more and has 77W's being converted. Don't operate the 350 yet by the way. Not likely.
* Etihad : Another 777F operator. Highly unlikely, they just aren't in a position to order anything extra. Only possibility would be if they converted some existing orders for 350-1000, don't think that involves ALC,
so no.
* Air France : Their cargo fleet consists of precisely 2 777F. As long as they operate their fleet of 77W's there is fleet commonality just as much as there would be with the 350's. Highly doubtful.
* Air China Cargo : Another large 777F operator who also operates 77W. Not likely.

So following this logic, why did any of those airlines order A350 passenger aircraft when they could have ordered (more) 77L/77Ws instead?

Well besides EK and EY, none of them had the 77L in a passenger configuration, a lot of them had 777-200's but that's what the 350 was aimed at replacing. EY quickly got rid of their 77L's when the 77W could do the job of their 77L's. EK have only recently ordered the 359, as well as 789 and that's because they finally worked out they need something smaller than a 77W or 380. Now most airlines who own 777F's aren't in any hurry to replace them, they just aren't that old, they are a great freighter and even the oldest ones have at least 10 years left, most likely with their original owners.

So where is the logic in replacing an aircraft that is economical, great at it's job, with lot's of life left in it, if owned probably paid off, with an expensive new aircraft that does the same job while granted using less fuel. How long will it take till the shiny new investment is actually cheaper too run when taking into account ownership costs, or higher leasing rates ?

Of course the same will apply for a 77XF as well.

Things would be different if you were talking about ordering 20, 30, even 50 aircraft, the economies of scale start to make a difference, but it is highly unlikely that anyone would order that many 350F or 77XF freighters in one hit at this time.

flipdewaf wrote:

LTEN11 wrote:

zeke wrote:

It’s happened on the 747 and MD11 many times.




Yes I agree, first time I have seen the dimensions listed in that article.

The only reason a 747 or MD-11 or any other cargo aircraft has ended up on it's arse is because some dufus didn't follow the correct process in loading or unloading, the door location was irrelevant.

Unfortunately dufus’s (dufi?) still exist and still work for airlines and will in the future. Making it impossible to tip by design is much better than preventing tipping by procedure.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How do you make it impossible to tip by design with the main deck cargo door at the rear, without say an IL62 style tail gear extending after landing ?

You will still need to rely on the ground crew to load/unload in the correct order.

LTEN11 wrote:

How do you make it impossible to tip by design with the main deck cargo door at the rear, without say an IL62 style tail gear extending after landing ?

You will still need to rely on the ground crew to load/unload in the correct order.

The A350 can already have the aft underfloor hold with the maximum payload and not tip and forward hold empty and not tip. With the door aft of the wing loading the aircraft places weight into the front.

If you have a look at the ramp for a lot of the larger freight carriers, they have mobile tie down blocks, or chains/straps for the nose gear.

LTEN11 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

LTEN11 wrote:

The only reason a 747 or MD-11 or any other cargo aircraft has ended up on it's arse is because some dufus didn't follow the correct process in loading or unloading, the door location was irrelevant.

Unfortunately dufus’s (dufi?) still exist and still work for airlines and will in the future. Making it impossible to tip by design is much better than preventing tipping by procedure.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How do you make it impossible to tip by design with the main deck cargo door at the rear, without say an IL62 style tail gear extending after landing ?

You will still need to rely on the ground crew to load/unload in the correct order.

When you put weight at the front it’s less likely to tip back because the centre of gravity begins by being moved forward and gradually moves rearward during the loading process.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LTEN11 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

LTEN11 wrote:

The only reason a 747 or MD-11 or any other cargo aircraft has ended up on it's arse is because some dufus didn't follow the correct process in loading or unloading, the door location was irrelevant.

Unfortunately dufus’s (dufi?) still exist and still work for airlines and will in the future. Making it impossible to tip by design is much better than preventing tipping by procedure.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How do you make it impossible to tip by design with the main deck cargo door at the rear, without say an IL62 style tail gear extending after landing ?

You will still need to rely on the ground crew to load/unload in the correct order.

Perhaps I am missing something, but if the ground crew are forced to load whatever cargo is going to be at the very front of the aircraft first, then wouldn't it make it virtually impossible to tip it? As when they load the sections behind the main gear, there has to be weight at the front to counter it. And I say virtually impossible, as you can never underestimate the ingenuity of a 'dufi', should they load the front section first, but only with a shipment for 'Barry's Bargain Bog-Rolls:' and the rear with a shipment for 'Larry's Lead-Lined Lederhosen" then I am sure it would be possible to tip a rear door freighter. But it would be much more difficult and require a truly gifted 'dufi'

The point is; although not impossible, it's significantly less likely to happen.

zeke wrote:

LTEN11 wrote:

How do you make it impossible to tip by design with the main deck cargo door at the rear, without say an IL62 style tail gear extending after landing ?

You will still need to rely on the ground crew to load/unload in the correct order.

The A350 can already have the aft underfloor hold with the maximum payload and not tip and forward hold empty and not tip. With the door aft of the wing loading the aircraft places weight into the front.

If you have a look at the ramp for a lot of the larger freight carriers, they have mobile tie down blocks, or chains/straps for the nose gear.

How does the aircraft place weight into the front ?

Rear cargo door loading : load the front lower cargo hold first. Commence loading the main deck, with first pallets moved forward. As the loading progresses, commence loading the lower deck hold as main deck loading is completed.

Front cargo door loading : load front lower deck first. Commence loading main deck with first pallets loaded positioned in front of the door towards the nose. Continue loading main deck moving freight back continually as more pallets loaded. Once passed critical loading point, commence loading lower rear hold.

Reverse the procedures for unloading.

Some aircraft use a tail stand such as the 747, or tie downs to the nose gear such as the MD-11 to help ensure tail tips don't occur and to help simplify, quicken loading process.

How will it be different to the 777F now ? Has a 777F had a tail tip ?

LTEN11 wrote:

How does the aircraft place weight into the front ?

It is a function of the moment arm between the centre of gravity and the point of rotation.

zeke wrote:

LTEN11 wrote:

How does the aircraft place weight into the front ?

It is a function of the moment arm between the centre of gravity and the point of rotation.

Whilst being loaded and unloaded ?

Add mass in front of the pivot point will move the centre of gravity forward increasing the weight on the front landing gear.

zeke wrote:

LTEN11 wrote:

How does the aircraft place weight into the front ?

It is a function of the moment arm between the centre of gravity and the point of rotation.

So, let me get this straight. The current 350 can have it's rear lower deck hold full and will not tip. The weight forward of the hold is sufficient to counteract the weight from the hold aft, pretty straight forward. The 350F won't have the weight of cabin furnishings, seats, galleys, toilets, overhead lockers, etc, but will have the weight of the cargo handling system, so a reduction of cabin weight should be expected.

Now our loader loads the first main deck pallets that arrive at the aircraft, they just happen to be for the positions aft of the door. Not thinking much of it he loads them into their allocated positions, say another 15 tons worth.

Are you telling me that the aircraft will not tip with maybe 30+ tons of freight in the aft fuselage and nothing forward of the main deck cargo door ?

Perhaps Airbus will fit an alarm that sounds / flashes if the first pallet heads rearwards??

JerseyFlyer wrote:

Perhaps Airbus will fit an alarm that sounds / flashes if the first pallet heads rearwards??

Nope. They will just have a big red flashing "Tilt" sign for when the tail tilts to the ground due to improper loading...

LTEN11 wrote:

So, let me get this straight. The current 350 can have it's rear lower deck hold full and will not tip. The weight forward of the hold is sufficient to counteract the weight from the hold aft, pretty straight forward. The 350F won't have the weight of cabin furnishings, seats, galleys, toilets, overhead lockers, etc, but will have the weight of the cargo handling system, so a reduction of cabin weight should be expected.

I’ll do some simple moments for you.

Maximum aft cargo hold load on the -1000 is 24.5 tonnes, the middle of that hold is 10.6m behind the main gear, the moment that generates is 24.5x10.6=259.7Nm, the empty weight of the A350F will be around 125 tonnes, 10% of that weight is on the nose gear. The nose gear is 28.45m ahead of the main, the moment is 12.5x28.45=355.62Nm.

The moment generated by the weight forward of the gear exceeds the moment generated by maximum load in the aft hold, it will not tip.

There will only be a couple of positions behind the main deck door, I doubt the ones closest and aft to the main deck door would be loaded early as this would impede maneuvering loads into the forward main deck.

LTEN11 wrote:

Are you telling me that the aircraft will not tip with maybe 30+ tons of freight in the aft fuselage and nothing forward of the main deck cargo door ?

On the 777F, starting with an empty aircraft, you can load the aft hold up to maximum weight as well as the 5 main-deck positions aft of the cargo door, and it will not tip.

So, yes, that is what Zeke is telling you.

PS
It’s virtually impossible to tail-tip a 757F, 767F and 777F. On the 777F you may delete “virtually”. I suppose it’s much the same with the A350F; even the most ham fisted doofus will find it impossible to tip.

PPS
The MD-11F is whole different kettle of fish, and will tail-tip if you as much as look at it the wrong way. It has a dry index of around 97,5 and will tail tip at index 100. We had a case where 3 blokes were in the aft end of the fuselage resetting locks, when another bloke hooked up an air-conditioning hose near the front of the aircraft. The combined effects of those 3 blokes and the airflow from the air-co was enough to tip the kite.

Tried to post the picture, but my skills fell short. Google “Gemini Air Cargo MD-11F tail tip Dubai”.

2175301 wrote:

In my opinion; I'd be a little careful about claiming that everyone who owns a 744F needs to replace it. Yes someday; but that could easily be 15 - 20+ years from now.

Unless they are a pure freight company... the airline may get out out of the freighter business entirely in that time-frame. Many other airlines have gotten rid of their historical freighter fleet

Certainly true for some, maybe even for most combined carriers.
Some like CI have planes they cannot leave on the Taiwan CAA register after they are 26 years old, which is coming up by mid decade, besides which I doubt they will keep them much beyond their 3rd heavy check and do a 4th, this is the airline which after the crash of CI 611 said they would keep nothing older than 10 years in their fleet! They also generate pre covid over a 1/3 of their revenue from cargo (and a lot more since covid with an operating profit to boot). They are the 11th largest cargo carrier by FTK and 5th by tonnage.
When they ordered the 6 777Fs in 2019, they seemed to be saying they would be used to start to replace the 744Fs, Last year the CEO said they would have 24 freighters in the fleet when the last 77F is delivered in '23 so the 77Fs are additional capacity now. So all 18 744Fs are likely to need replacing before the end of the decade and starting mid decade. Just in time for A350Fs and possibly within a 777XF time frame. With 14 A359s in fleet, need to replace 23 A333s (probably with at least some more A359s if not all), 10 77Ws which were described as interim lift to replace the 744s (and possibly replaced eventually by A35Js), the order for a freighter replacement is As to lose. (plus they are replacing their 738s with A321neos).

B777LRF wrote:

PS
It’s virtually impossible to tail-tip a 757F, 767F and 777F. On the 777F you may delete “virtually”. I suppose it’s much the same with the A350F; even the most ham fisted doofus will find it impossible to tip.

What if they overload ( >max weight allowed) the lower aft compartment?

B777LRF wrote:

PPS
The MD-11F is whole different kettle of fish, and will tail-tip if you as much as look at it the wrong way. It has a dry index of around 97,5 and will tail tip at index 100. We had a case where 3 blokes were in the aft end of the fuselage resetting locks, when another bloke hooked up an air-conditioning hose near the front of the aircraft. The combined effects of those 3 blokes and the airflow from the air-co was enough to tip the kite.

Tried to post the picture, but my skills fell short. Google “Gemini Air Cargo MD-11F tail tip Dubai”.

Maybe this one from 2005, thread has pictures...

Ref: viewtopic.php?t=458857

Speaking of wide cargo doors, the A380 F was supposed to have a 4.2m wide one, but not as high as 777/747 2.6m only

One of the advantages the 747-8F has over the Airbus aircraft is the nose-loading capability that the A380F lacks. Airbus, instead, provides a large main cargo door measuring 168-in. wide X 103-in. high. The size of the cargo door was actually increased, in part, on the advice of Cargolux, which was a member of the A380F potential customer definition group, although, ultimately, the company went with Boeing.

https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/arch ... -2592.html

zeke wrote:

LTEN11 wrote:

So, let me get this straight. The current 350 can have it's rear lower deck hold full and will not tip. The weight forward of the hold is sufficient to counteract the weight from the hold aft, pretty straight forward. The 350F won't have the weight of cabin furnishings, seats, galleys, toilets, overhead lockers, etc, but will have the weight of the cargo handling system, so a reduction of cabin weight should be expected.

I’ll do some simple moments for you.

Maximum aft cargo hold load on the -1000 is 24.5 tonnes, the middle of that hold is 10.6m behind the main gear, the moment that generates is 24.5x10.6=259.7Nm, the empty weight of the A350F will be around 125 tonnes, 10% of that weight is on the nose gear. The nose gear is 28.45m ahead of the main, the moment is 12.5x28.45=355.62Nm.

The moment generated by the weight forward of the gear exceeds the moment generated by maximum load in the aft hold, it will not tip.

There will only be a couple of positions behind the main deck door, I doubt the ones closest and aft to the main deck door would be loaded early as this would impede maneuvering loads into the forward main deck.

As I said, I understand that.

B777LRF wrote:

LTEN11 wrote:

Are you telling me that the aircraft will not tip with maybe 30+ tons of freight in the aft fuselage and nothing forward of the main deck cargo door ?

On the 777F, starting with an empty aircraft, you can load the aft hold up to maximum weight as well as the 5 main-deck positions aft of the cargo door, and it will not tip.

So, yes, that is what Zeke is telling you.

PS
It’s virtually impossible to tail-tip a 757F, 767F and 777F. On the 777F you may delete “virtually”. I suppose it’s much the same with the A350F; even the most ham fisted doofus will find it impossible to tip.

PPS
The MD-11F is whole different kettle of fish, and will tail-tip if you as much as look at it the wrong way. It has a dry index of around 97,5 and will tail tip at index 100. We had a case where 3 blokes were in the aft end of the fuselage resetting locks, when another bloke hooked up an air-conditioning hose near the front of the aircraft. The combined effects of those 3 blokes and the airflow from the air-co was enough to tip the kite.

Tried to post the picture, but my skills fell short. Google “Gemini Air Cargo MD-11F tail tip Dubai”.

Thanks for that, the 777F just looks more balanced than the 350F, but I guess the numbers don't lie.

I saw a KE MD-11F on its rear in SYD once, but that was pretty straight forward, they hadn't unloaded the rear lower compartment and were just completing main deck unloading and over she went.

Loadstar reports that sources have told them that Ethiopian is considering an order for the A350F, while Cargolux and Atlas Air have said they were exploring Airbus’s option.

https://theloadstar.com/battle-is-on-fo ... on-boeing/

Lufthansa Cargo said to Loadstar that they were monitoring the market for potential future freighter types. This includes the A350F and the 777XF as likely future intercontinental freighters.

reidar76 wrote:

Loadstar reports that sources have told them that Ethiopian is considering an order for the A350F, while Cargolux and Atlas Air have said they were exploring Airbus’s option.

https://theloadstar.com/battle-is-on-fo ... on-boeing/

Lufthansa Cargo said to Loadstar that they were monitoring the market for potential future freighter types. This includes the A350F and the 777XF as likely future intercontinental freighters.

Getting half of these orders would be quite an achievement. Seems there are enough airlines that are interested in it...

Cargolux (Luxembourg) is in advanced talks with Airbus concerning a potential A350F order.

https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news ... freighters

This is pretty much in line with what Airbus have been saying for quite some time. I feel confident the A350F will be/are a very capable and efficient freighter, so much so that Boeing have to do some pretty significant work on their B777XF to be competitive. I think both the freighter majors as well as other airlines understand this based on specs they obviously have on the A350F as well as specs they have got from Boeing regarding a potential 777XF. I have said it before, I think the A350 will turn out to be very sucessfull indeed. And some posters here will need to admit their scepticism if not outright denial was not warranted.

reidar76 wrote:

Cargolux (Luxembourg) is in advanced talks with Airbus concerning a potential A350F order.

https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news ... freighters

From the article:

A Cargolux spokesperson confirmed it has been analysing offers from both manufacturers.

Did Cargolux actually received a proper offer from Boeing? That would mean that Boeing is past the ATO stage, something that we haven't commented much here on A.net while people are still questioning whether Airbus has launched the A350F or not.

Getting CargoLux would be quite the achievement.

So at the moment we have buying interest from:
FedEx
Ups
Cargolux
Ethiopian cargo
Lufthansa cargo

And orders from:
Cma cgm
Anonymous (ALC lease)

Cardude2 wrote:

So at the moment we have buying interest from:
FedEx
Ups
Cargolux
Ethiopian cargo
Lufthansa cargo

And orders from:
Cma cgm
Anonymous (ALC lease)

Singapore decision pending also

RB211trent wrote:

Cardude2 wrote:

So at the moment we have buying interest from:
FedEx
Ups
Cargolux
Ethiopian cargo
Lufthansa cargo

And orders from:
Cma cgm
Anonymous (ALC lease)

Singapore decision pending also

I bet they are but have they said they are?

Cardude2 wrote:

So at the moment we have buying interest from:
FedEx
Ups
Cargolux
Ethiopian cargo
Lufthansa cargo

And orders from:
Cma cgm
Anonymous (ALC lease)

No orders yet. There is a LOI from a lessor who indicates that 7 airlines are interested in discussing the A350F

We have a MOU wich is only an understanding to further discuss the possibility.

Will people please stop calling LOIs and MOUs orders. They are not; and neither requires any commitment of capital or to take any aircraft; which is what an order does.

2175301 wrote:

Cardude2 wrote:

So at the moment we have buying interest from:
FedEx
Ups
Cargolux
Ethiopian cargo
Lufthansa cargo

And orders from:
Cma cgm
Anonymous (ALC lease)

No orders yet. There is a LOI from a lessor who indicates that 7 airlines are interested in discussing the A350F

We have a MOU wich is only an understanding to further discuss the possibility.

Will people please stop calling LOIs and MOUs orders. They are not; and neither requires any commitment of capital or to take any aircraft; which is what an order does.

Technically they are potential orders, so I don’t understand the hair splitting…

2175301 wrote:

Cardude2 wrote:

So at the moment we have buying interest from:
FedEx
Ups
Cargolux
Ethiopian cargo
Lufthansa cargo

And orders from:
Cma cgm
Anonymous (ALC lease)

No orders yet. There is a LOI from a lessor who indicates that 7 airlines are interested in discussing the A350F

We have a MOU wich is only an understanding to further discuss the possibility.

Will people please stop calling LOIs and MOUs orders. They are not; and neither requires any commitment of capital or to take any aircraft; which is what an order does.

I wonder what you will say when the first 350F is flying...

2175301 wrote:

Cardude2 wrote:

So at the moment we have buying interest from:
FedEx
Ups
Cargolux
Ethiopian cargo
Lufthansa cargo

And orders from:
Cma cgm
Anonymous (ALC lease)

No orders yet. There is a LOI from a lessor who indicates that 7 airlines are interested in discussing the A350F

We have a MOU wich is only an understanding to further discuss the possibility.

Will people please stop calling LOIs and MOUs orders. They are not; and neither requires any commitment of capital or to take any aircraft; which is what an order does.

No, we will not. We have been calling LOI/MOU/Commitments or any other vague terms as orders for as long I’ve been around at A.net. It are orders but in different stages of negotiations. It clearly shows that there is a demand. And knowing Airbus a bit and also a bit more about these two specific deals, I fully expect these 11 orders for the A350F to be finalised before the end of this year. And having all these stages also ensures companies can do PR at every step. It’s a win-win marketing wise. You stay in the news and that what counts as well.

We called the LOI of IAG for the MAX an order, we called the LOI for Amedeo and the A380 an order. So what. You might not like it, but the rest of us clearly do and discuss the actual content (number of aircraft etc.) of the deals not the wording of it.

Cheers!

The biggest news to me seems to be that the 777XF has not been launched yet. Did the A350F really spoil the Dubai set up?

2175301 wrote:

Cardude2 wrote:

So at the moment we have buying interest from:
FedEx
Ups
Cargolux
Ethiopian cargo
Lufthansa cargo

And orders from:
Cma cgm
Anonymous (ALC lease)

No orders yet. There is a LOI from a lessor who indicates that 7 airlines are interested in discussing the A350F

We have a MOU wich is only an understanding to further discuss the possibility.

Will people please stop calling LOIs and MOUs orders. They are not; and neither requires any commitment of capital or to take any aircraft; which is what an order does.

You are technically correct, but......

If Boeing was to firm 777X delivery dates and re-start milestone payments today, probably a group of orders would disappear, be deferred, or switch to LOI / MOU category to keep the 'names' on board.

LOI / MOU are far more robust that in the days of Concorde, and when major legacies used to reserve and trade production positions on demand models, and OEM's to claim my backlog is bigger than yours.

2175301 wrote:

No orders yet. There is a LOI from a lessor who indicates that 7 airlines are interested in discussing the A350F

We have a MOU wich is only an understanding to further discuss the possibility.

Will people please stop calling LOIs and MOUs orders. They are not; and neither requires any commitment of capital or to take any aircraft; which is what an order does.

Ever since I can remember, we have always discussed airshow transactions as orders regardless of whether they are LOIs, MOUs, firm orders or orders via lessors. So lets be consistent about this even though the technicalities differ. Otherwise, all our past discussions are invalidated!