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.

When I use LOIs at work they often do involve commitment of capital, they are often used to commit money towards specified development or ensuring that a vendor will maintain production slots by funding acquisition costs of long lead items. They can also involve certain amounts of exclusivity periods from both supplier and customer. Determining that an LOI is or isn’t something very specific cannot be determined without seeing the wording.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

A contract between an airline and Boeing/Airbus listed as a "firm order" may have penalty free cancellation clauses, so in theory it may be less of a commitment than a LOI. We don't know unless we read the contract and have the know-how to interpret it correctly.

Let's just use the terms in the OEMs press releases, or just "commitments" to cover all three categories. There are currently no "firm orders" for the A350F, but it is highly likely there will be before the end of the year. There are commitments for 9 aircraft.

There should now be no doubt that Airbus have launched the A350F, and that airlines will sign-up for the freighter. We know more of the specifications after the Dubai airshow, and it still looks like a 2025 EIS.

Boeing doesn't have any LOI or MOU for a potential 777XF, and have no ATO from the board. I can see that a 777XF will be launched, but probably not before the 777-9 is certified, or very close to certification in late 2023 or early in 2024. Earliest EIS is probably 2028 for the 777XF, or 15 years after 777X program launch.

Noshow wrote:

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?

Maybe Boeing wants (or needs?) to optimize the 77XF specs in order to come with a viable alternative for the A350.

Opus99 wrote:

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/cargolux-says-analysing-new-freighter-planes-2021-11-19/
This is the original Reuters article. Seems they’re in advanced discussions with both

Opus99 wrote:

I’m not sure you’d be in advanced talks with customers if you don’t have ATO

There is nothing in the reuters article that says there are advanced discussions with Boeing.

What is says that there are "advanced discussions with Airbus" and Cargolux has been "analysing offers from both manufacturers" which does not say that offers are anything like each other. They can be very dissimilar even to an extent that one of them is almost nothing like an offer at all and analysing the level of noncommitment in the "offer" is something cargolux can do and say that they are analysing the offers.

Just because we were nitpicking about words and interpreting them in the most pessimistic ways to say a LOI is completely meaningless noncommitment.

Okay. Maybe I mixed the articles but now when I look what I think is the right reuters article It seems to say even less concrete about anything and I don't see a word "negotiation" used.

marcelh wrote:

Noshow wrote:

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?

Maybe Boeing wants (or needs?) to optimize the 77XF specs in order to come with a viable alternative for the A350.

This

Boeing probably had a somewhat good idea of the specs they could offer to customers. However I think the specs of the A350F caught Boeing off-guard, as well as I dont think they had envisaged Airbus launching the A350F freighter now.
So I very much agrees that Boeing now find that they have to do some significant design work on the 777XF, mainly by upping the MTOW significantly, say to 365 metric tons, to make it a viable contender to the 350F. And if pavement loading becomes a significant problem with such high MTOW then Boeing needs to do significant changes to the gear as well. And they probably need to increase engine thrust as well. This work takes time and until they are able to come up with this optimized version I dont think it is reasonable to expect even an ATO, and certainly not a formal launch with customer orders/commitments.

LTEN11 wrote:

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 ?

The same reason that Emirates, Singapore Airlines, ANA and Cathay Pacific have been getting rid of 77Ws with plenty of life left in them and replacing them with newer, more efficient aircraft. Same as with Delta and 777s, TAP/Singapore and A330ceos, American Airlines and A330-200s, ANA and 77Ws,

Interest rates being so low for the past ~decade (ie cheap money) make such situations, whereby airlines are getting rid of 'not-all-that-old' aircraft and replacing them with new efficient ones, much more common than they once were.

Zeke has pointed out repeatedly that the fuel burn difference between the A350-1000 and the Boeing 77W ("god's gift to airline economics") is twice that of the difference between the 77W and the A340-600 (which this site habitually refers to as an inefficient dinosaur).

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.

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.

Interesting statement regarding the MD11 - presumably this makes loading take much longer if your loadplan cannot be easily changed due to CofG considerations....especially if the cargo you must load first arrives late with a tight connection? Do you get situations where you can't unload the lower deck until the upper deck is done (or mostly done) in order to avoid having the CofG move too far back? This must be a big pain for the integrators, surely?

We hear repeatedly on a.net how impossible it would be to integrate Airbus widebodies into the fleets of carriers like UPS and FedEx because of wingspan issues, but I'm thinking that there would be great efficiencies gained from replacing MD11s with aircraft like the A350F or A330-300P2F where a reasonable CofG situation makes loading and unloading much quicker and more efficient.

Opus99 wrote:

SteinarN wrote:

marcelh wrote:

Maybe Boeing wants (or needs?) to optimize the 77XF specs in order to come with a viable alternative for the A350.

This

Boeing probably had a somewhat good idea of the specs they could offer to customers. However I think the specs of the A350F caught Boeing off-guard, as well as I dont think they had envisaged Airbus launching the A350F freighter now.
So I very much agrees that Boeing now find that they have to do some significant design work on the 777XF, mainly by upping the MTOW significantly, say to 365 metric tons, to make it a viable contender to the 350F. And if pavement loading becomes a significant problem with such high MTOW then Boeing needs to do significant changes to the gear as well. And they probably need to increase engine thrust as well. This work takes time and until they are able to come up with this optimized version I dont think it is reasonable to expect even an ATO, and certainly not a formal launch with customer orders/commitments.

Can you negotiate with customers without an ATO?

Are we really sure Boeing board have made an ATO for the 77XF?
Are we sure "negotiations" are the correct word?
What if Boeing have shown customers a consept with preliminary specs of what Boeing could start designing/developing if customers wanted or expressed interest in buying?

Opus99 wrote:

Ertro wrote:

Okay. Maybe I mixed the articles but now when I look what I think is the right reuters article It seems to say even less concrete about anything and I don't see a word "negotiation" used.

That was from another Reuters article about Lufthansa not cargolux though.

Yes and I was surprised by that. Because in the German aviation press, there was a direct quote from Spohr that they were in discussions about the specifications. (Discussions can be sometimes translated as negotiations). And he said something like it’s good to have finally competition in this segment.

Moreover I haven’t heard anything about Lufthansa being in negotiations for freighters currently. And I don’t expect them to be.

Obviously given their knowledge base, and an important 77X customer etc, they are talks about product specifications, as they are likely to order large freighters at some point in the future.

Opus99 wrote:

SteinarN wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Can you negotiate with customers without an ATO?

Are we really sure Boeing board have made an ATO for the 77XF?
Are we sure "negotiations" are the correct word?
What if Boeing have shown customers a consept with preliminary specs of what Boeing could start designing/developing if customers wanted or expressed interest in buying?

Lufthansa CEO said negotiations, so I’m guessing there is an initial offer

I agree Boeing have made some sort of offer. I think Boeing had initially planned the 777XF to be based on the 777X-8 lenght, and I suspect that this configuration have been offered. Whether the board has formally made an ATO I will not argue about, as this becomes pure speculation. What I do think is that the whole 777XF project now are back on the drawing board. As I've said upthread, I think Boeing got caught off guard by the A350F specs and now they see that the originally intended 777X-8 based freighter is not viable anymore. Boeing themselves said on the Dubai air show that they was working on figuring out the best lenght, that possibly the market had shiftet toward lower density freight, that the most optimum lenght possibly would be somewhere between the 777X-8 and the 777X-9 lenght.

But, as I've also said, this reconfiguration, together with the 109 metric ton payload of the A350F requires a significant upping of the 777XF MTOW. If Boeing cant up the MTOW significantly then the 777X-F cant possibly be competitive overall. They could possibly get to 109ton payload, maybe barely the same volume with a 777X-8 based lenght and MTOW, but then they would be 5+ percentage points short on fuel burn and possibly range. The 777X-F absolutely need more MTOW, payload and volume than the A350F to be fully competitive. If not Boeing have to sell the 777XF for (significantly) less than Airbus sells their A350F for, which would be a non viable proposition.

Edit: When I'm talking about more MTOW I am ofc meaning the 777XF needs more MTOW compared to the 777X.

zkojq wrote:

LTEN11 wrote:

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 ?

The same reason that Emirates, Singapore Airlines, ANA and Cathay Pacific have been getting rid of 77Ws with plenty of life left in them and replacing them with newer, more efficient aircraft. Same as with Delta and 777s, TAP/Singapore and A330ceos, American Airlines and A330-200s, ANA and 77Ws,

Interest rates being so low for the past ~decade (ie cheap money) make such situations, whereby airlines are getting rid of 'not-all-that-old' aircraft and replacing them with new efficient ones, much more common than they once were.

Zeke has pointed out repeatedly that the fuel burn difference between the A350-1000 and the Boeing 77W ("god's gift to airline economics") is twice that of the difference between the 77W and the A340-600 (which this site habitually refers to as an inefficient dinosaur).

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.

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.

Interesting statement regarding the MD11 - presumably this makes loading take much longer if your loadplan cannot be easily changed due to CofG considerations....especially if the cargo you must load first arrives late with a tight connection? Do you get situations where you can't unload the lower deck until the upper deck is done (or mostly done) in order to avoid having the CofG move too far back? This must be a big pain for the integrators, surely?

We hear repeatedly on a.net how impossible it would be to integrate Airbus widebodies into the fleets of carriers like UPS and FedEx because of wingspan issues, but I'm thinking that there would be great efficiencies gained from replacing MD11s with aircraft like the A350F or A330-300P2F where a reasonable CofG situation makes loading and unloading much quicker and more efficient.

This MD-11F CG thing is getting way overblown. The aft belly does affect the center of gravity but nowhere near as much as the heavier containers in the aft upper deck do, which are a lot more weight and further back. You're just fine unloading both bellies at the same time. Likewise, I can load a full aft belly around 15k lbs without much concern even with nothing in the forward. The only thing I avoid is socking 5k lb+ containers into the aft upper deck with nothing up front to balance it out. Full sequential offloads are only needed when you have a very small load crew doing one compartment at a time. I've been working with 11s and 10s for many, many years and have a pretty damn good feel for the sensitivities of each.

To note, when you have a complete MD-11 onload the heaviest containers are aft of the wing for optimal fuel burn. As such it's pretty safe to build a flight using whatever containers are available, as if you get heavy containers first you'lll have great aft CG, if you get lighter containers first you'll still be fine with the entire envelope to work with as your weight moves forward. I've never taken a flight delay because of container load order.

zkojq wrote:

Interesting statement regarding the MD11 - presumably this makes loading take much longer if your loadplan cannot be easily changed due to CofG considerations....especially if the cargo you must load first arrives late with a tight connection? Do you get situations where you can't unload the lower deck until the upper deck is done (or mostly done) in order to avoid having the CofG move too far back? This must be a big pain for the integrators, surely?

We hear repeatedly on a.net how impossible it would be to integrate Airbus widebodies into the fleets of carriers like UPS and FedEx because of wingspan issues, but I'm thinking that there would be great efficiencies gained from replacing MD11s with aircraft like the A350F or A330-300P2F where a reasonable CofG situation makes loading and unloading much quicker and more efficient.

There is little to no leeway when ground handling a MD-11F; the nose-gear tether was more less invented for this type. You can usually juggle the cargo around a little bit, as most integrator ULDs have more or less the same weight; it’s rare you have to contend with 16ft or 20ft pallets or +6800kg floating positions in the rainbow world.

But the aircraft does have one very important thing going for it: It’s ridiculously good at flying 85 tons for 8 hours.

Opus99 wrote:

SteinarN wrote:

marcelh wrote:

Maybe Boeing wants (or needs?) to optimize the 77XF specs in order to come with a viable alternative for the A350.

This

Boeing probably had a somewhat good idea of the specs they could offer to customers. However I think the specs of the A350F caught Boeing off-guard, as well as I dont think they had envisaged Airbus launching the A350F freighter now.
So I very much agrees that Boeing now find that they have to do some significant design work on the 777XF, mainly by upping the MTOW significantly, say to 365 metric tons, to make it a viable contender to the 350F. And if pavement loading becomes a significant problem with such high MTOW then Boeing needs to do significant changes to the gear as well. And they probably need to increase engine thrust as well. This work takes time and until they are able to come up with this optimized version I dont think it is reasonable to expect even an ATO, and certainly not a formal launch with customer orders/commitments.

Can you negotiate with customers without an ATO?

I'm pretty sure that in most aircraft launches there are extensive discussions over the optimisation of specifications before the concept for the aircraft becomes a firm enough configuration to "offer"......

Rgds

B777LRF wrote:

zkojq wrote:

Interesting statement regarding the MD11 - presumably this makes loading take much longer if your loadplan cannot be easily changed due to CofG considerations....especially if the cargo you must load first arrives late with a tight connection? Do you get situations where you can't unload the lower deck until the upper deck is done (or mostly done) in order to avoid having the CofG move too far back? This must be a big pain for the integrators, surely?

We hear repeatedly on a.net how impossible it would be to integrate Airbus widebodies into the fleets of carriers like UPS and FedEx because of wingspan issues, but I'm thinking that there would be great efficiencies gained from replacing MD11s with aircraft like the A350F or A330-300P2F where a reasonable CofG situation makes loading and unloading much quicker and more efficient.

There is little to no leeway when ground handling a MD-11F; the nose-gear tether was more less invented for this type. You can usually juggle the cargo around a little bit, as most integrator ULDs have more or less the same weight; it’s rare you have to contend with 16ft or 20ft pallets or +6800kg floating positions in the rainbow world.

But the aircraft does have one very important thing going for it: It’s ridiculously good at flying 85 tons for 8 hours.

I teach ground handling and I've always been very firm on the concept that the nose tether should only be thought of as insurance, never something to rely on during normal operations. If I'm not mistaken UPS does not use nose tethers and they do just fine without them, in fact when I came into the training supervisor position I had to really crack down on the mindset among a lot of very senior FedEx employees that they could load the plane however they wanted and just let the plane completely hang on the tether, which was guitar-string tight.

HPRamper wrote:

If I'm not mistaken UPS does not use nose tethers and they do just fine without them

They have their fair share of loading mishaps, it’s only been a couple of weeks since on of their 747s was on its tail in ICN.

The problem with upping the MTOW on the 777XF, is that we’re now looking at an aircraft with an MTOW 50 tons higher than the A350F but without the necessary gain in payload. That comes with significant costs, but fixed and operating, and would need to be offset by a significantly higher payload than the competition.

If the 350F needs a 317T MTOW to lift 109T, a 365T MTOW for the 777XF would have to yield a payload around 130T to be competitive. And let’s not forget it’s not enough to lift those 130T, they also need to come back down again. Which is why the MLAW of a freighter needs to be quite a bit higher than that of a passenger aircraft.

We don’t know, but the blurb seems to suggest the 777-8XF will have an OEW of around 165 tons. Adding 10 tons of minimum fuel and 130 tons of payload, we’re looking at a MLAW of 305 tons. Which means that a 365T MTOW is not going to take it much longer than 8-9 hours. It would most certainly be able to carry the same 109 tons the same distance as an A350F but, and here’s the crux, weighing 50 tons more and burning 5-10% more fuel to get the job done. Not a winning proposition.

“Caught with trousers down” is a saying which may be rather apt in this situation.

B777LRF wrote:

The problem with upping the MTOW on the 777XF
...
It would most certainly be able to carry the same 109 tons the same distance as an A350F but, and here’s the crux, weighing 50 tons more and burning 5-10% more fuel to get the job done. Not a winning proposition.

Correct, but there's another itch there.

77W/77L family (F included) was already highest-ever in terms of gear loading. No airplane was that heavy on gear.

I find it a bit difficult to believe it still could take another few tons. 360T, mentioned earlier in different threads, could be a challenge. Now it's 365T. How far will we go? What the required PCN/ACN will be? WIll it limit? How far can it go without affecting ops of a typical cargo carrier?

I guess that's one of reasons that will be evaluated by Boeing, but airlines, too, and could be a deciding factor for a case or two.

Cheers,
Adam

Francoflier wrote:

Why does everybody keep talking about MTOW?
.....
Who knows... no me. I just know that 109T is nowhere near achievable with current A350 weights and limits, so they're going to have to do something rather involved to it.

Interesting considerations, agree 109t payload sounds ambitious!

I don't have time today to dive into this, but on Airbus.com I found these A350-1000 numbers.

A350-1000
Max ramp weight: 319.9 tonnes
Max take-off weight: 319 tonnes
Max landing weight: 236 tonnes
Max zero fuel weight: 223 tonnes

Wiki says A350-1000 OEW= 155t. One could take a 319t shortened, stripped A350-1000 as base iso a beefed up A350-900. Probably most realistic, because they'll use the A350-1000 bigger wing, LDG, engines etc.

Knowing A350-900F lenght, the lower fuselage weight can easily be calculated. Using the new build A330-200F vs A330-200, 777LR vs 777LRF and 763ER vs 763F OEW comparisons, the weights of the cargo deck, window deletions, loading systems & cargo door structure can be estimated.

At least that would be my lazy approach .




www.leehamnews.com

Francoflier wrote:

Why does everybody keep talking about MTOW?

MTOW in a freighter only dictates range, which is not a really critical parameter for cargo ops, at least not as much as for pax ops.

The figures that dictate max payload are OEW and MZFW, and those are the most important parameters for a freighter.
MLW is also relatively important as it dictates how much extra fuel you carry to your destination. Payload may start to be limited if you carry extra arrival fuel in case of bad Wx at dest if the MLW is fairly close to MZFW.
MTOW only tells you how far you'll carry that payload. A short MZFW-MTOW spread will limit your range with max payload, but will not change said max payload...
Average freight sectors are shorter than average pax sectors, especially for 777/A350-class airplanes. An increase in MTOW is not required nor particularly useful for the A350F.

While on the topic, I still have a hard time seeing how the A350F will carry 109T of payload.
I estimate that a pax 359 factory stripped down and equipped for cargo ops would weigh about 125T. Of course, we're now adding a few frames aft of the wing and using the -1000 mid section, wings, gear and engine if I followed the development correctly. I doubt this would weigh any less than 130T when all is said and done.

Using the current highest MZFW for the -1000 that I can find, it only gives a max payload of 93T. A 16T increase in ZFW seems a bit extreme, especially since that means also increasing the MLW by at least 13T to be viable.
I guess they may have found a way to massively increase the zero fuel weight and landing weight (although that would hint at structural mods and their associated added weight), or maybe those higher limits were structurally achievable all along, just not used as they had little operational relevance in pax ops?

Who knows... no me. I just know that 109T is nowhere near achievable with current A350 weights and limits, so they're going to have to do something rather involved to it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_MD-11

Works here. Normally a freight variant has a higher MZFW. That requires either e beefed up structure or a reduction in cycle limits I believe.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

keesje wrote:

Francoflier wrote:

Why does everybody keep talking about MTOW?
.....
Who knows... no me. I just know that 109T is nowhere near achievable with current A350 weights and limits, so they're going to have to do something rather involved to it.

Interesting considerations, agree 109t payload sounds ambitious!

I don't have time today to dive into this, but on Airbus.com I found these A350-1000 numbers.

A350-1000
Max ramp weight: 319.9 tonnes
Max take-off weight: 319 tonnes
Max landing weight: 236 tonnes
Max zero fuel weight: 223 tonnes

Wiki says A350-1000 OEW= 155t. One could take a 319t shortened, stripped A350-1000 as base iso a beefed up A350-900. Probably most realistic, because they'll use the A350-1000 bigger wing, LDG, engines etc.

Knowing A350-900F lenght, the lower fuselage weight can easily be calculated. Using the new build A330-200F vs A330-200, 777LR vs 777LRF and 763ER vs 763F OEW comparisons, the weights of the cargo deck, window deletions, loading systems & cargo door structure can be estimated.

At least that would be my lazy approach .




www.leehamnews.com

I think it was mentioned by airbus that it would be 13t lower than the 77f (on phone so haven’t go the link to hand) so an educated guess at about 130-132t OWE. This gives a MZFW about 240t. That doesn’t seem particularly unachievable. That also fits with the expected range of 4700nm. My numbers put it at about ~4500nm but that’s assuming a 70min fuel on landing, I would imagine the marketing numbers are tighter than that.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If we assume an A350 needs 8t of fuel reserve (~1.5 hr), OEW is estimated at 125t (https://leehamnews.com/2021/11/11/airbu ... fications/), at landing an A350F could weigh 125t~(OEW) + 109t (payload) + 8t (fuel reserves) = 242t

That's a MLW 6t/ ~2.5% more than todays heaviest A350-1000 (MLW 236t). I could imagine Airbus would be willing to invest in a A350 MLW bump, to faciltate this freighter, the QF Sunrise A35X ULH and a possible (capacity for range) stretch (-2000) later on.

LifelinerOne wrote:

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!

Sorry, no, there was just as much pushback about the IAG "order" for 100 MAXes and the Amedeo "order" for 20 A380s on a.net as we see for the A350F LOIs/MOUs, and it turned out there was merit in such pushback since neither actually became orders. Note that our IAG thread used LOI not "order" in the title ( ref: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1425047 ). Seems we are not being consistent here.

To me it's quite plausible that ALC could be an Amedeo-like marketing agreement, just giving the A350F some "sizzle" in exchange for access to the A321s that are the true target of the "order". Or it could end up being a firm, actual order. Time will tell, but for now IMO we're counting chickens before they are hatched.

reidar76 wrote:

A contract between an airline and Boeing/Airbus listed as a "firm order" may have penalty free cancellation clauses, so in theory it may be less of a commitment than a LOI. We don't know unless we read the contract and have the know-how to interpret it correctly.

Let's just use the terms in the OEMs press releases, or just "commitments" to cover all three categories. There are currently no "firm orders" for the A350F, but it is highly likely there will be before the end of the year. There are commitments for 9 aircraft.

So you'd feel comfortable calling the Amedeo / Airbus 20 A380 "arrangement" a "commitment", when in reality it was just a marketing agreement, all sizzle and no bacon? To me it seems farcical that 20 A380s were carried in the A380 order total for many years, when those orders just disappeared when the program was halted. If so, what is the point of an order total, if it can be inflated by commitments that have no actual commitment behind them?

It seems the terms LOI/MOU carry a lot more clarity, even though it can be true as Fred states that there can be financial commitment in a LOI.

I don't see the problem of just maintaining separate totals instead of lumping things into the order total that aren't actually orders.

astuteman wrote:

I'm pretty sure that in most aircraft launches there are extensive discussions over the optimisation of specifications before the concept for the aircraft becomes a firm enough configuration to "offer"......

Absolutely.

We had such when Boeing was talking to both EK and LH about 747-8i. EK wanted more range, LH wanted more pax count, LH produced cash first, they got what they wanted, EK backed away. Somewhere in that process an actual ATO happened, but everything was really fluid till money was on the table, then it came together in a hurry.

I do suspect Boeing is tweaking the specs based on what the customer says they want, and since we have no actual signed contracts for A350F, their situation is fluid as well. Airbus takes something of a risk by being the first mover, but if they waited till 77XF was launched a lot of the potential business would be unavailable to them. They are showing confidence in their product, which IMO is commendable.

Clearly both A and B would want to change as little as possible from their base models, but it may be such last minute tweaking that gets both parties to improve their product, typically by using more expensive materials. Unfortunately this could make each product more costly and in the end we may get two vendors putting large sums into a split market with neither making any money for their efforts. This is pretty much what was being stated in the early pages of this thread, and it seems to be the way things are going, yet the game is far from over.

Francoflier wrote:

Why does everybody keep talking about MTOW?

MTOW in a freighter only dictates range, which is not a really critical parameter for cargo ops, at least not as much as for pax ops.

The figures that dictate max payload are OEW and MZFW, and those are the most important parameters for a freighter.
MLW is also relatively important as it dictates how much extra fuel you carry to your destination.

Partially agree. MTOW dictates range, but ML(A)W is also heavily influencing the maximum payload; no use taking 109 tons aloft if you can’t land it again.

To put it simplified, the MZFW is governed by wing bending - the heavier the fuselage is (which is what carries the payload), the more the wings will be bending to lift that weight. Freighters usually achieve most of the MZFW growth by reducing the maximum number of cycles; a 77W is good for around 70K cycles whereas a 77F is “only” good for around 40K.

(Simplified) MLAW is governed by the strength of the gear. Put a stronger gear on it, and the MLAW will go up. But so will the OEW and that means you’re cutting into payload and range.

(Simplified) MTOW is governed by engine power; fit stronger engines and the MTOW goes up. Airbus is proposing a 2 tons MTOW growth over the -1000, which isn’t much at all and can probably be achieved without bumping up the thrust, and paying for it with slightly reduced take-off performance.

If Airbus has come out and said 109 tons, it seems a tad foolish to question that number without having any hard data to base the questioning on. Logic dictates they will fit a stronger gear and lower the maximum cycles, thereby achieving the 109 tons payload number without beefing up the structure to the point OEW takes too much of a hit.

I appreciate this hurts the Boeing camp deeply, as it effectively puts the 777XF on very shaky ground . Offering an aircraft which is 30 tons heavier (OEW) and requires 60 tons more to achieve maximum range (MTOW), whilst not offering considerably more in the way of payload or range, does not scream “winner”. And that’s probably why Boeing have not officially launched the 777XF yet. It’s a bit of a “back to the drawing board moment” for them, and they now have to figure out how to be competitive. Logic dictates they can only do that by going much, much larger, thereby justifying a much heaver aircraft by offering a considerably higher payload (130 tons-is) and volume, whilst retaining a range in the vicinity of 5000NM.

PS
The internet trade is driving the need for a 10-11 hour aircraft able to carry +100 tons. Hence the success of the 77F. The market is becoming extremely time sensitive, and the old adage of “cargo doesn’t mind a stop en-route” holds less truth now than it once did. This is the mousetrap Airbus is offering, and it’s a much better mousetrap than both the current offer (77F) and what is starting to look like Mk. I of the competition (a -8 based 77XF). Will be very interesting to see what Mk. II will look like.

The winner short term might still be the 777, but the converted 77W variants. 100t Payload, at least 2 competing conversion lines and acquiring costs way lower than any new aircraft. An issue might be 2027 environmental restrictions though.

I see Boeing, GE, lessors, operators put up a political fight to get some sort of exemptions/ extended time window. Lobbying might already have started.

Francoflier wrote:

While on the topic, I still have a hard time seeing how the A350F will carry 109T of payload.
I estimate that a pax 359 factory stripped down and equipped for cargo ops would weigh about 125T. Of course, we're now adding a few frames aft of the wing and using the -1000 mid section, wings, gear and engine if I followed the development correctly. I doubt this would weigh any less than 130T when all is said and done.

We have been given a few data points here.

Leeham says the A350F OEW is 30 tonne below the A350-1000, that makes it around 125 tonnes.

“ the aircraft is shortened, a whopping 30t is removed from the empty weight of the A350-1000.”

From https://leehamnews.com/2021/11/11/airbu ... fications/

Airbus has said an OEW 37 tonnes lower than the 744F and 13 tonnes lighter than the 77F



From https://aircraft.airbus.com/en/aircraft ... ters/a350f

The A35F must OWE to be in the range of 125-129 tonnes based off those figures, which puts MZFW at around 238 tonnes which is pretty close to what it is on the -1000.

For the 77F OWE I used the Polar payload of 105,233 kg ( https://www.polaraircargo.com/wp-conten ... 319-v2.pdf ) and MZFW of 248115 kg, OWE of 142882 kg. That also fits with the A35F payload being 3 tonnes more than the 77F.

Compared to the -1000 the A350F will have a shorter fuselage they should save 8-9 tonnes there, they won’t cutout most of the windows and doors from the side panels so all that structure that supports them goes, remove passenger services like the big water and waste tanks. Lots of passenger related services can go.

B777LRF wrote:

Airbus is proposing a 2 tons MTOW growth over the -1000, which isn’t much at all and can probably be achieved without bumping up the thrust, and paying for it with slightly reduced take-off performance.

It’s actually 2 tonnes below the highest -1000 MTOW weight variant. Airbus has a higher W/V now for the passenger -1000.

HPRamper wrote:

If I'm not mistaken UPS does not use nose tethers and they do just fine without them

Actually my station has been using the weight cart and tether system on the MD-11 only for about ~7months now. I also have to argue that the plane will still tip.....the weight cart is there to stop it form touching the ground at the tail...but that kinda falls on deaf ears at times....

zeke wrote:

They have their fair share of loading mishaps, it’s only been a couple of weeks since on of their 747s was on its tail in ICN.

From what I saw/told. It was a maintenance mishap on that. What I was told they were running tests on the gear after it had issues retracting them on departure which lead them to return to ICN. Plane was fully unloaded and when they were running the tests the center mains weren't pinned resulting in the center mains retracting.

My old school head cant work out where the A350F fits in

Will the A350 be a MD-11/DC-10/767 replacement, or more 747 replacement?

SEU wrote:

My old school head cant work out where the A350F fits in

Will the A350 be a MD-11/DC-10/767 replacement, or more 747 replacement?

747 and 777F

WolfPDX wrote:

HPRamper wrote:

If I'm not mistaken UPS does not use nose tethers and they do just fine without them

Actually my station has been using the weight cart and tether system on the MD-11 only for about ~7months now. I also have to argue that the plane will still tip.....the weight cart is there to stop it form touching the ground at the tail...but that kinda falls on deaf ears at times....

zeke wrote:

They have their fair share of loading mishaps, it’s only been a couple of weeks since on of their 747s was on its tail in ICN.

From what I saw/told. It was a maintenance mishap on that. What I was told they were running tests on the gear after it had issues retracting them on departure which lead them to return to ICN. Plane was fully unloaded and when they were running the tests the center mains weren't pinned resulting in the center mains retracting.

FedEx requires tethers or weight carts on all aircraft, not just the MDD. It's pretty ridiculous to me. Nobody is going to tip any of the other aircraft. The 11 does move up and down quite a bit during loading/unloading, I've seen the crew door a full foot above where it started during a normal operation plenty of times, have to adjust the stair height.

Francoflier wrote:

zeke wrote:

We have been given a few data points here.

Leeham says the A350F OEW is 30 tonne below the A350-1000, that makes it around 125 tonnes.

“ the aircraft is shortened, a whopping 30t is removed from the empty weight of the A350-1000.”

From https://leehamnews.com/2021/11/11/airbu ... fications/

Airbus has said an OEW 37 tonnes lower than the 744F and 13 tonnes lighter than the 77F



From https://aircraft.airbus.com/en/aircraft ... ters/a350f

The A35F must OWE to be in the range of 125-129 tonnes based off those figures, which puts MZFW at around 238 tonnes which is pretty close to what it is on the -1000.

For the 77F OWE I used the Polar payload of 105,233 kg ( https://www.polaraircargo.com/wp-conten ... 319-v2.pdf ) and MZFW of 248115 kg, OWE of 142882 kg. That also fits with the A35F payload being 3 tonnes more than the 77F.

That still seems optimistic to me.

The difference in weight between a 359 and 35K in similar configuration is only about 12T.
The way I see it, a freighter conversion of the base 359 would shed about 10 to 12T off the basic weight of a pax variant. That leaves a base 359F weighing about 125T, optimistically, maybe 123. Since the plan is to do more of a shortened -1000 than a lengthened -900, that would push that figure up by at least 5-6T, being optimistic again. I can see 129T being achievable, at a stretch, but not really anything less than that. And that's assuming no weight gain from any structural beefing up required to increase the MZFW which, for that OEW, still needs to go up by 15T, which is quite the bump (ditto the MLW).

I do expect that some of that MZFW increase would come from operational limitations such as lower airframe cycles or limitations on the MTOW above a certain ZFW (as for the 330F), but that still sounds like a lot to me.

Now that they've made this 109T figure public, they're going to have to achieve it one way or the other, what we don't know is what operational cost that will come with.


Something off-topic that puzzles me a bit: How come Airbus is willing to develop a Franken-350 that will only sell a couple dozen frames a year at the very most but has been
unwilling for years to just add a few frames to the 320 to make it more competitive against the 738?
(I know, I know, they don't need to as long as it sells... except it doesn't really sell anymore)

Well the main goal of the 350F is to break the competitor´s monopoly in that segment so that reason alone is sufficient to explain the launch of the 350F. Airbus sold almost 4000 320NEOs so far but only on Anet isn´t it selling anymore.

Francoflier wrote:

The difference in weight between a 359 and 35K in similar configuration is only about 12T.

Where you work the difference in empty weight between them is 20t.

Francoflier wrote:

The way I see it, a freighter conversion of the base 359 would shed about 10 to 12T off the basic weight of a pax variant.

The weight of a “green” 359 before the passenger cabin is installed is under 120t, that’s with windows etc installed.

Francoflier wrote:

Since the plan is to do more of a shortened -1000 than a lengthened -900, that would push that figure up by at least 5-6T, being optimistic again.

The plan as far as I know is to join the forward section of the -900 in front of the wing to the wing and aft section of the -1000. That should be 8-9 tonnes in fuselage.

Francoflier wrote:

And that's assuming no weight gain from any structural beefing up required to increase the MZFW which, for that OEW, still needs to go up by 15T, which is quite the bump (ditto the MLW).

Don’t see any need for any significant increase in MZFW or MLW, everything seems to work pretty close to existing -1000 numbers. They are offering passenger -1000s now with 319 t MTOW, and 236t MLW.

Francoflier wrote:

Now that they've made this 109T figure public, they're going to have to achieve it one way or the other, what we don't know is what operational cost that will come with.

They are achieving it according to them with a low operating weight. It’s is the only way their published OEW reductions compared to the 747F and 777F work.

Francoflier wrote:

Something off-topic that puzzles me a bit: How come Airbus is willing to develop a Franken-350 that will only sell a couple dozen frames a year at the very most but has been unwilling for years to just add a few frames to the 320 to make it more competitive against the 738?

The way I see it they are using exiting -900 and -1000 barrels to do this, it is just one of the advantages of the composites. Additionally the A350F will still be on the same production line where 320 and 321 lines were geographically different.

zeke wrote:

Francoflier wrote:

Since the plan is to do more of a shortened -1000 than a lengthened -900, that would push that figure up by at least 5-6T, being optimistic again.

The plan as far as I know is to join the forward section of the -900 in front of the wing to the wing and aft section of the -1000. That should be 8-9 tonnes in fuselage.

From the Leeham article, the plan is for the A359F to be around 70.7m long. That is only about 3m shorter than the A350-1000. Does 3m of A350 fuselage weigh 8-9 tonnes? That would be roughly 2,6-3 tonnes/m of fuselage.

MoKa777 wrote:

From the Leeham article, the plan is for the A359F to be around 70.7m long. That is only about 3m shorter than the A350-1000. Does 3m of A350 fuselage weigh 8-9 tonnes? That would be roughly 2,6-3 tonnes/m of fuselage.

Correct

MoKa777 wrote:

zeke wrote:

Francoflier wrote:

Since the plan is to do more of a shortened -1000 than a lengthened -900, that would push that figure up by at least 5-6T, being optimistic again.

The plan as far as I know is to join the forward section of the -900 in front of the wing to the wing and aft section of the -1000. That should be 8-9 tonnes in fuselage.

From the Leeham article, the plan is for the A359F to be around 70.7m long. That is only about 3m shorter than the A350-1000. Does 3m of A350 fuselage weigh 8-9 tonnes? That would be roughly 2,6-3 tonnes/m of fuselage.

I would really hope Airbus do know the figures.

It isn’t only the frame it is all the window strengthening, the passenger set up (galleys, lavs, water, waste, luggage bins, seats etc) then the added weight of the cargo door and cargo handling systems.

I do not understand why so many on here disbelieve a manufacturer on weights. These are much less likely to be marketing fluff such as per seat economy, range (with passengers etc).

StTim wrote:

I would really hope Airbus do know the figures.

It isn’t only the frame it is all the window strengthening, the passenger set up (galleys, lavs, water, waste, luggage bins, seats etc) then the added weight of the cargo door and cargo handling systems.

I do not understand why so many on here disbelieve a manufacturer on weights. These are much less likely to be marketing fluff such as per seat economy, range (with passengers etc).

These are just questions to verify the weight information given by Leehem for the A350F. Airbus has not given any weight for the aircraft from what I remember (maybe you have a link to this information stated by Airbus itself). Airbus only gives certain weights in their marketing material "relative to" the 747F and 777F.

Nothing against Airbus at all, I hope this aircraft is a massive success, and everything they have said leads me think it definitely will be. Just trying to cross-check the information provided by Leeham which has led to most of the discussion on this topic here.

zeke wrote:

MoKa777 wrote:

From the Leeham article, the plan is for the A359F to be around 70.7m long. That is only about 3m shorter than the A350-1000. Does 3m of A350 fuselage weigh 8-9 tonnes? That would be roughly 2,6-3 tonnes/m of fuselage.

Correct

I suspect you are not talking about the same thing. How can 3m of A350 fuselage (even fully equipped) weigh 8 tonnes? That would mean that 60m of fuselage weigh 160 tonnes which is over the OEW of the A350-1000.

tomcat wrote:

I suspect you are not talking about the same thing. How can 3m of A350 fuselage (even fully equipped) weigh 8 tonnes? That would mean that 60m of fuselage weigh 160 tonnes which is over the OEW of the A350-1000.

Talking about the exact same thing, as a wide body comparison have a look at the 77L vs the 77W you will see that is also about 3t per meter.

Hopefully you can appreciate that the amount of systems in the wing area is considerably more than at the nose or tail.

zeke wrote:

tomcat wrote:

I suspect you are not talking about the same thing. How can 3m of A350 fuselage (even fully equipped) weigh 8 tonnes? That would mean that 60m of fuselage weigh 160 tonnes which is over the OEW of the A350-1000.

Talking about the exact same thing, as a wide body comparison have a look at the 77L vs the 77W you will see that is also about 3t per meter.

Hopefully you can appreciate that the amount of systems in the wing area is considerably more than at the nose or tail.

Does making the fuselage shorter affect the amount of systems in the wing area?

B777LRF wrote:

The problem with upping the MTOW on the 777XF, is that we’re now looking at an aircraft with an MTOW 50 tons higher than the A350F but without the necessary gain in payload. That comes with significant costs, but fixed and operating, and would need to be offset by a significantly higher payload than the competition.

If the 350F needs a 317T MTOW to lift 109T, a 365T MTOW for the 777XF would have to yield a payload around 130T to be competitive. And let’s not forget it’s not enough to lift those 130T, they also need to come back down again. Which is why the MLAW of a freighter needs to be quite a bit higher than that of a passenger aircraft.

We don’t know, but the blurb seems to suggest the 777-8XF will have an OEW of around 165 tons. Adding 10 tons of minimum fuel and 130 tons of payload, we’re looking at a MLAW of 305 tons. Which means that a 365T MTOW is not going to take it much longer than 8-9 hours. It would most certainly be able to carry the same 109 tons the same distance as an A350F but, and here’s the crux, weighing 50 tons more and burning 5-10% more fuel to get the job done. Not a winning proposition.

“Caught with trousers down” is a saying which may be rather apt in this situation.

Stunning. All this time, I was assuming Boeing would keep the leadership of the 777F and 777-8F was going to be this hole in one untouchable product. Times change. The A350 is a great product.

According to the link below the A350F will have 319tons MTOW and 250tons MLW. If like the A351 it will have 13tons difference between MZFW and MLW then MZFW will be 237t. That givers us an OEW of 128tons (237-109).

https://aircraft.airbus.com/en/aircraft ... -freighter

Millenium wrote:

According to the link below the A350F will have 319tons MTOW and 250tons MLW. If like the A351 it will have 13tons difference between MZFW and MLW then MZFW will be 237t. That givers us an OEW of 128tons (237-109).

https://aircraft.airbus.com/en/aircraft ... -freighter

Maximum landing weight increases from 236 to 250 metric tonnes, a 14 metric tonnes increase.

Strange though that originally the MTOW was stated to be only 317 metric tonnes. But 319 tonnes do make more sense I think.

SteinarN wrote:

Millenium wrote:

According to the link below the A350F will have 319tons MTOW and 250tons MLW. If like the A351 it will have 13tons difference between MZFW and MLW then MZFW will be 237t. That givers us an OEW of 128tons (237-109).

https://aircraft.airbus.com/en/aircraft ... -freighter

Maximum landing weight increases from 236 to 250 metric tonnes, a 14 metric tonnes increase.

Strange though that originally the MTOW was stated to be only 317 metric tonnes. But 319 tonnes do make more sense I think.

The A35K is now certified up to that weight so I'm not surprised. Looks great on paper, let's see how the market reacts. AB might have a real winner in this space finally..