zeke wrote:

NZ321 wrote:

Excuse me? When has any airline committed to this kind of volume up front plus options on a pure freighter of this size?

I guess in 1993, when UPS ordered 60 763Fs

NZ321 said "a pure freighter of this size", I guess they meant "a pure freighter of A350 size."

As there is literally no freighter the same size I used common sense.

NZ321 wrote:

Excuse me? When has any airline committed to this kind of volume up front plus options on a pure freighter of this size? It's not common. I don't see this playing out at all, albeit not impossible. Rather, I'd see 2-3 launch customers making up the total. For it to be the numbers you are talking about QR are out of the game, it's more likely about FX or 5X. Yet QR are indeed a likely launch or co-launch customer. So I think we need to diversify our thinking, unless you have some concrete evidence otherwise?

I would agree that its unlikely, but not impossible. That said, FedEx has said that it can't get aircraft/pilots fast enough for the cargo demand, and that growth projections made 5 years ago (upon which all sorts of planning was contingent) have been blown out of the water by a time factor of years. Its a problem for them, but a good problem to have.

Now, were I the CEO of FedEx, I'd had reasons for getting all of the freighters I could at the lowest possible cost, knowing both OEMs are near desperate to move air frames out of the factory and diversifying my suppliers is a positive thing, along with competition in the large freighter segment.

The CEO of UPS seems to be retreating from the new aircraft market, though at the right price all things are possible.

Ultimately, I don't think we are far apart in our understanding that the A350F is at a weird chicken-and-egg point. There will need to be likely 50 airframes minimum to justify the line, and landing a fifty plane order in this environment is no small feat. Now, do I think there is a market past the 50 or so? Absolutely. But I think the 50 need to be solid, likely with a company that could launch a 50 plane new aircraft program.

If Airbus really needs 1 single order for 50 aircraft to launch then there will never be an A350F. I don't understand why this misinterpretation of the initial news keeps on coming back in this thread.

Obviously Airbus does want orders for 50 to launch, but they rather have several customers instead of just 1. Having 5 launch customers for 10 planes each is a much stronger start then having just 1 customer and is of course more realistic. Obviously Airbus will not pass on 50 aircraft order if a customer wants that, but they are not going to make the launch dependent on such an order.

Momo1435 wrote:

If Airbus really needs 1 single order for 50 aircraft to launch then there will never be an A350F. I don't understand why this misinterpretation of the initial news keeps on coming back in this thread.

Obviously Airbus does want orders for 50 to launch, but they rather have several customers instead of just 1. Having 5 launch customers for 10 planes each is a much stronger start then having just 1 customer and is of course more realistic. Obviously Airbus will not pass on 50 aircraft order if a customer wants that, but they are not going to make the launch dependent on such an order.

So people expect Airbus to get 50 commitments or more from one or more customer(s) before launching the A350.

That's very interesting.
Which airlines or cargo operator would-be interested beyond Qatar?

VV wrote:

So people expect Airbus to get 50 commitments or more from one or more customer(s) before launching the A350.

That's very interesting.
Which airlines or cargo operator would-be interested beyond Qatar?

Post 1 of this thread: "Analyst say they will probably want about 50 units to launch".
Post 804 of this thread: "So people expect Airbus to get 50 commitments or more from one or more customer(s) before launching the A350."

Revelation wrote:

VV wrote:

So people expect Airbus to get 50 commitments or more from one or more customer(s) before launching the A350.

That's very interesting.
Which airlines or cargo operator would-be interested beyond Qatar?

Post 1 of this thread: "Analyst say they will probably want about 50 units to launch".
Post 804 of this thread: "So people expect Airbus to get 50 commitments or more from one or more customer(s) before launching the A350."

Why should we take their words as a gospel?

VV wrote:

Revelation wrote:

VV wrote:

So people expect Airbus to get 50 commitments or more from one or more customer(s) before launching the A350.

That's very interesting.
Which airlines or cargo operator would-be interested beyond Qatar?

Post 1 of this thread: "Analyst say they will probably want about 50 units to launch".
Post 804 of this thread: "So people expect Airbus to get 50 commitments or more from one or more customer(s) before launching the A350."

Why should we take their words as a gospel?

Indeed, and why should we use an analyst's projection as a starting point and take it even further, especially since the source article just gave the bare projection without any supporting evidence?

Revelation wrote:

VV wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Post 1 of this thread: "Analyst say they will probably want about 50 units to launch".
Post 804 of this thread: "So people expect Airbus to get 50 commitments or more from one or more customer(s) before launching the A350."

Why should we take their words as a gospel?

Indeed, and why should we use an analyst's projection as a starting point and take it even further, especially since the source article just gave the bare projection without any supporting evidence?

So, experts here should be able to provide an indication about the "magic number" of commitments that would support a launch.

VV wrote:

Revelation wrote:

VV wrote:

Why should we take their words as a gospel?

Indeed, and why should we use an analyst's projection as a starting point and take it even further, especially since the source article just gave the bare projection without any supporting evidence?

So, experts here should be able to provide an indication about the "magic number" of commitments that would support a launch.

Advice is worth what you pay for it, and in this case it'd be nothing.

So when will this freighter actually be launched? The more Airbus delays it, the more 777-200LRF will rack more orders. With how nicely the 77LF that flew commercially first on 2009 has been doing, I doubt Boeing is looking to or needs to release a 778F anytime soon.

Niloko wrote:

So when will this freighter actually be launched? The more Airbus delays it, the more 777-200LRF will rack more orders. With how nicely the 77LF that flew commercially first on 2009 has been doing, I doubt Boeing is looking to or needs to release a 778F anytime soon.

A more pessimistic view would show that the 777 line could be building more if there were orders to be had at an acceptable profit. 77W production has stopped. 779 production is presumably mostly deferred till the certification status is resolved and market conditions for international travel improve. Plenty of production slots are going unfilled at a time where Boeing surely could use the money. Boeing can't sell 772F past 2027 so it will need a new product or will have to exit the market. They may not need the replacement on Jan 1, 2028 since they can/will do a "last call" on 772F that may saturate the market but they will need something in the pipeline to keep customers loyal.

I have said before it's a great time for Airbus to do an A350F, and I don't think that market window is stunted much by the presence of the 772F since A350F will have to sell on the basis of its presumed technical superiority. The question is the same as it's been for months if not years now, can they get enough business to justify the cost of launching the product? To do so they will have to get large orders from customers already operating 772F or 748F. In theory the customers willing to buy new 772F or 748F are the kind that are willing to pay for technical superiority, converting the theory to practice is where the challenge arises.

Revelation wrote:

Niloko wrote:

So when will this freighter actually be launched? The more Airbus delays it, the more 777-200LRF will rack more orders. With how nicely the 77LF that flew commercially first on 2009 has been doing, I doubt Boeing is looking to or needs to release a 778F anytime soon.

A more pessimistic view would show that the 777 line could be building more if there were orders to be had at an acceptable profit. 77W production has stopped. 779 production is presumably mostly deferred till the certification status is resolved and market conditions for international travel improve. Plenty of production slots are going unfilled at a time where Boeing surely could use the money. Boeing can't sell 772F past 2027 so it will need a new product or will have to exit the market. They may not need the replacement on Jan 1, 2028 since they can/will do a "last call" on 772F that may saturate the market but they will need something in the pipeline to keep customers loyal.

I have said before it's a great time for Airbus to do an A350F, and I don't think that market window is stunted much by the presence of the 772F since A350F will have to sell on the basis of its presumed technical superiority. The question is the same as it's been for months if not years now, can they get enough business to justify the cost of launching the product? To do so they will have to get large orders from customers already operating 772F or 748F. In theory the customers willing to buy new 772F or 748F are the kind that are willing to pay for technical superiority, converting the theory to practice is where the challenge arises.

If I interpret your argument, basically it means Airbus will not launch the A350F any time soon.

VV wrote:

If I interpret your argument, basically it means Airbus will not launch the A350F any time soon.

Given what is in the public domain, I'm fine with a pessimistic stance, but of course not everything is in the public domain. Given Airbus executives are speaking optimistically, either (a) they have concrete evidence that there will be a market for the A350F concept that they are presenting to customers and are busily preparing for a launch, or (b) they are dissembling. I don't have any way of knowing if it is (a) or (b), nor do I think anyone else here does.

Listening to Boeings earnings call today an analyst asked about boeings freighter strategy and according to Calhoun its basically the 777XF. They seem pretty hell bent on it. He suggests that the current development money being allocated at Boeing for existing programs are focused on the bringing the max10 and 777X and Freighter version to service. I know everybody's more interested in the 350F which may very well be great but basically long story short. Boeings freighter strategy is the 777XF

There are no 773F's in service yet, the MD11s and 744s are aging rapidly and the -8 is going out of production soon. So it would appear that a huge competition between the 350F (which is basically the same size as a 773F) is in place. In the past, the competition has generally favored converted freighters over purpose built. So Airbus has to crack that nut, along with being way behind in general freighter sales to begin with. It would seem a big hill to climb.

Momo1435 wrote:

If Airbus really needs 1 single order for 50 aircraft to launch then there will never be an A350F. I don't understand why this misinterpretation of the initial news keeps on coming back in this thread.

Obviously Airbus does want orders for 50 to launch, but they rather have several customers instead of just 1. Having 5 launch customers for 10 planes each is a much stronger start then having just 1 customer and is of course more realistic. Obviously Airbus will not pass on 50 aircraft order if a customer wants that, but they are not going to make the launch dependent on such an order.

I mean, it’s certainly possible that Airbus will get fifty firm commitments for a speculative WB in this market, with the whole process being multiple contingent on 10 different and possibly competing entities coordinating.

My point was that it’s simply far more likely for one operator to be the lions share if not the sole initial purchaser.

Ultimately this is all speculation. As long as one can clearly delineate the bounds of their speculation, it’s no more uninformed than any other “analyst.”

SteelChair wrote:

There are no 773F's in service yet, the MD11s and 744s are aging rapidly and the -8 is going out of production soon. So it would appear that a huge competition between the 350F (which is basically the same size as a 773F) is in place. In the past, the competition has generally favored converted freighters over purpose built. So Airbus has to crack that nut, along with being way behind in general freighter sales to begin with. It would seem a big hill to climb.

I don’t think the two main operators of the -11 can or will replace them until either legally mandated to do so, or at the very end of the airframe life, which is probably still a decade plus away.

The idea the -11F is “aging rapidly” doesn’t seem to be shared in Louisville or Memphis. Which, for those reading this in Rio Linda, are the only two places that matter. Make those two places a “an offer that can’t be refused?” Things might change. But the obsolescence of the -11 likely is oversold IMO.

morrisond wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Hi Fred,

What happens if Boeing literally re-engines the 777F with the Ge9X and uses the existing wing? 777F is derated to 110K Thrust and that is what the GE9X looks like it will enter service at - with the potential to probably go a lot higher. Cheaper/simpler to build than 778F, a lot less Capital investment - although they have to keep the old wing in production.

They will be able to cover the package market with the 777ERSF.

Just a thought.

Just as a quick guide, I reduced the SFC by 10% and added 2t engine weight to the frame. I left the payload the same.

The range at max payload (103.7t) was about 5200-5300nm.

The fuel use for the 5000nm @ 95t was 83.2t. (TOW was ~330t)

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

That seems like a no-brainer to not bother with the 778F then - just re-engine the 777F. You would not have as much internal space as 778F - but if that is critical then 777ERSF.

No there is, because the 777X is a LOT more heavier than the current 777 family and yet it retains the same MTOW. The OEW of the 779, 778, 77W, 77L/F is at around 184, 172, 165 and 145 respectively. Some of the back of the napkin maths told me that the efficiency advantage (less fuel carried) would only make up for the weight increase in a 12+ hour flight. On shorter pax flights we would see the 77X having a higher TOW than the 777 but it can still outperform its predecessor because better SFC and aerodynamics allows it to burn less fuel. But that’s based on the assumption that pax is light and we never hit MTOW before we hit max structural payload. That’s why the 77X makes sense. It’s engineered to be a pax plane, especially for long haul carriers like the ME3. When it comes to the freighter side things are completely different. The weight gain on the 77X will inevitably eat into its payload. And as we all know very few freighter missions are longer than 12h…… As for the clearance problem from photos I see the 777 and 77X both have significantly larger clearances than the 787 and A350, I doubt that if there is a clearance problem with it.

Airbus launches A350 freighter
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSP6N2CH015

AirCal737 wrote:

As for the clearance problem from photos I see the 777 and 77X both have significantly larger clearances than the 787 and A350, I doubt that if there is a clearance problem with it.

Due to its size, the GE9X pylon is located further away from the fuselage on the 77X than the GE90 pylon is on the 777. This would suggest putting the GE9X on the 777 would not be feasible.

chiad wrote:

Airbus launches A350 freighter
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSP6N2CH015

That would suggest the launch costumers are in place if the premise of this thread has factual basis.

Nice Airbus. So Boeing will obviously respond, probably why Calhoun was making so much noise about a freighter yesterday.

Also some details have come out on the 350.

Based on 1000 but a sort of hybrid with the 900

And it will have a 90+ tonne payload.

Let’s see what Boeing comes up with.

https://www.flightglobal.com/air-transp ... 26.article

zeke wrote:

AirCal737 wrote:

As for the clearance problem from photos I see the 777 and 77X both have significantly larger clearances than the 787 and A350, I doubt that if there is a clearance problem with it.

Due to its size, the GE9X pylon is located further away from the fuselage on the 77X than the GE90 pylon is on the 777. This would suggest putting the GE9X on the 777 would not be feasible.

chiad wrote:

Airbus launches A350 freighter
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSP6N2CH015

That would suggest the launch costumers are in place if the premise of this thread has factual basis.

According to Airbus, the A350 freighter has approval from the board of directors but no firm orders yet.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... torms-back

Okay. Airbus hasn’t quite lined up launch customers but I’m sure that shouldn’t be a problem if they’ve launched the aircraft right?

“The pandemic has accelerated a shift to online shopping, prompting renewed demand for dedicated cargo planes. The company gets “closer every day” to lining up launch customers, Faury said.“

Fantastic news, a monopoly is never good for the customer.

Reuters: Airbus' board approves the launch of an A350 freighter. The freighter to enter service in 2025.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 021-07-29/

It looks like most of its features will be donated by the A350-1000.

https://www.flightglobal.com/air-transp ... 26.article

reidar76 wrote:

Reuters: Airbus' board approves the launch of an A350 freighter. The freighter to enter service in 2025.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 021-07-29/

777F should still be a good profit maker for Boeing then since a similarly sized plane will only come in 2025

Niloko wrote:

777F should still be a good profit maker for Boeing then since a similarly sized plane will only come in 2025

Assuming naturally that carriers are prepared to risk buying a product that will not meet the 2027 emissions requirements, and possibly exposing them to asset which will face restrictions around the world for the majority of its service life. This is the driving factor for the 77X.

zeke wrote:

Niloko wrote:

777F should still be a good profit maker for Boeing then since a similarly sized plane will only come in 2025

Assuming naturally that carriers are prepared to risk buying a product that will not meet the 2027 emissions requirements, and possibly exposing them to asset which will face restrictions around the world for the majority of its service life. This is the driving factor for the 77X.

Is there a list about which planes will not meet that requirement? The 777-300ER for example is said to be only around 13% less efficient than 779 and 351 for passenger flights so since the 77L is a short version of it, I think it should meet the requirements.

Niloko wrote:

Is there a list about which planes will not meet that requirement?

In terms of widebodies, any aircraft not powered by a modern engine like the GEnx, Trent 7000, GE9X, Trent XWB. The older engines will not meet the more restrictive requirements. To this end I expect to see an Airbus to also offer the NEO options on the other freighter models.

reidar76 wrote:

Reuters: Airbus' board approves the launch of an A350 freighter. The freighter to enter service in 2025.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 021-07-29/

According to that schedule the A350F shouldl enter into service about two or three years before 777-8F does.

That's interesting.

zeke wrote:

Niloko wrote:

Is there a list about which planes will not meet that requirement?

In terms of widebodies, any aircraft not powered by a modern engine like the GEnx, Trent 7000, GE9X, Trent XWB. The older engines will not meet the more restrictive requirements. To this end I expect to see an Airbus to also offer the NEO options on the other freighter models.

Ah. So are engines like Trent 900 and 2nd gen GE90 considered modern still or do they barely miss the mark? The 2nd gen GE90 only flew first in 2002 for example.

zeke wrote:

Niloko wrote:

777F should still be a good profit maker for Boeing then since a similarly sized plane will only come in 2025

Assuming naturally that carriers are prepared to risk buying a product that will not meet the 2027 emissions requirements, and possibly exposing them to asset which will face restrictions around the world for the majority of its service life. This is the driving factor for the 77X.

I was under the impression aircraft not meeting the 2027 emission requirements could still be operated after 2027, the requirement was for deliveries after 2027, wasn't it?. I could be wrong though. Airlines will need freighters before the A350F is available for delivery.

With 90t+ payload, can the A350F have the length as the A350-1000, or is a shrink necessary?

I hope Boeing will not wait too long granting authority to offer the 777XF now that Airbus launched the A350F. We could see some interesting competitions.

VV wrote:

reidar76 wrote:

Reuters: Airbus' board approves the launch of an A350 freighter. The freighter to enter service in 2025.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 021-07-29/

According to that schedule the A350F shouldl enter into service about two or three years before 777-8F does.

That's interesting.

Is it confirmed the 777-8F will not have EIS before 2027? I missed that.

Niloko wrote:

zeke wrote:

Niloko wrote:

Is there a list about which planes will not meet that requirement?

In terms of widebodies, any aircraft not powered by a modern engine like the GEnx, Trent 7000, GE9X, Trent XWB. The older engines will not meet the more restrictive requirements. To this end I expect to see an Airbus to also offer the NEO options on the other freighter models.

Ah. So are engines like Trent 900 and 2nd gen GE90 considered modern still or do they barely miss the mark? The 2nd gen GE90 only flew first in 2002 for example.

Still 25 years gap to 2027, this is not unreasonable.

Niloko wrote:

Ah. So are engines like Trent 900 and 2nd gen GE90 considered modern still or do they barely miss the mark? The 2nd gen GE90 only flew first in 2002 for example.

I haven't looked at the A380 engines, they might be okay, they were meeting the LHR requirements by some margin. I didn't mention them as there is no freighter. The GE90-110/115 does not meet the requirement.

The A350F will use the strength and muscle of the certified A350-1000 weights but no doubt be optimised to size it for optimum main deck cargo carrying capacity. Likely as said smaller than the 1000 but larger than the 900.

frigatebird wrote:

zeke wrote:

Niloko wrote:

777F should still be a good profit maker for Boeing then since a similarly sized plane will only come in 2025

Assuming naturally that carriers are prepared to risk buying a product that will not meet the 2027 emissions requirements, and possibly exposing them to asset which will face restrictions around the world for the majority of its service life. This is the driving factor for the 77X.

I was under the impression aircraft not meeting the 2027 emission requirements could still be operated after 2027, the requirement was for deliveries after 2027, wasn't it?. I could be wrong though. Airlines will need freighters before the A350F is available for delivery.

With 90t+ payload, can the A350F have the length as the A350-1000, or is a shrink necessary?

I hope Boeing will not wait too long granting authority to offer the 777XF now that Airbus launched the A350F. We could see some interesting competitions.

Listening to their earnings call yesterday it does not seem far away. They have now seem to include the 777X freighter in their development costs along side the MAX 10 and 777-9. And more generally Calhoun just going on about the 777X freighter. So I would expect green light in the “near term” as he suggested. I’m looking to Dubai airshow as the selfie at time for an announcement on that

frigatebird wrote:

I was under the impression aircraft not meeting the 2027 emission requirements could still be operated after 2027, the requirement was for deliveries after 2027, wasn't it?.

Airports will continue to impose curfews and quotas on these aircraft which reduces their economic life, I have talked about this earlier in this thread. This is already happening today with relatively modern freighters like the 744ERF.

frigatebird wrote:

With 90t+ payload, can the A350F have the length as the A350-1000, or is a shrink necessary?

I have previously suggested an A350-900 front fuselage and A350-1000 rear fuselage which is just my opinion. At some stage I expect Airbus to also launch a longer A350. I have been though the Airbus documents published today and they have not provided any details on the specifications. There is only as small reference to board approval.

frigatebird wrote:

I hope Boeing will not wait too long granting authority to offer the 777XF now that Airbus launched the A350F. We could see some interesting competitions.

Will be a significant difference in empty weights between the two.

zeke wrote:

Niloko wrote:

Ah. So are engines like Trent 900 and 2nd gen GE90 considered modern still or do they barely miss the mark? The 2nd gen GE90 only flew first in 2002 for example.

I haven't looked at the A380 engines, they might be okay, they were meeting the LHR requirements by some margin. I didn't mention them as there is no freighter. The GE90-110/115 does not meet the requirement.

I’m trying to find a source, but I seem to recall reading the A380 does not meet the standard, along with the 748. While they have relatively efficient engines they still have 4 of them which hurts them in emissions.

Doesn’t really matter though since both are out of or will soon be out of production.

Polot wrote:

zeke wrote:

Niloko wrote:

Ah. So are engines like Trent 900 and 2nd gen GE90 considered modern still or do they barely miss the mark? The 2nd gen GE90 only flew first in 2002 for example.

I haven't looked at the A380 engines, they might be okay, they were meeting the LHR requirements by some margin. I didn't mention them as there is no freighter. The GE90-110/115 does not meet the requirement.

I’m trying to find a source, but I seem to recall reading the A380 does not meet the standard, along with the 748. While they have relatively efficient engines they still have 4 of them which hurts them in emissions.

Doesn’t really matter though since both are out of or will soon be out of production.

In terms of volume surely the 747-8F is one of the most efficient out there? And the 747-8I also is quite efficient when it has a decent amount of passengers. Having 4 engines shouldn't be a problem since the closest twin jet to 747-8 is 777-9 and their difference is greater than 100 seats in 2 class configuration.

Niloko wrote:

Polot wrote:

zeke wrote:

I haven't looked at the A380 engines, they might be okay, they were meeting the LHR requirements by some margin. I didn't mention them as there is no freighter. The GE90-110/115 does not meet the requirement.

I’m trying to find a source, but I seem to recall reading the A380 does not meet the standard, along with the 748. While they have relatively efficient engines they still have 4 of them which hurts them in emissions.

Doesn’t really matter though since both are out of or will soon be out of production.

In terms of volume surely the 747-8F is one of the most efficient out there? And the 747-8I also is quite efficient when it has a decent amount of passengers. Having 4 engines shouldn't be a problem since the closest twin jet to 747-8 is 777-9 and their difference is greater than 100 seats in 2 class configuration.

It all depends on how the emissions are calculated (which I do not know) and where the threshold is. There is no getting around the fact that in terms of raw emissions the 748’s is around double that of a 787’s with similar GE engines. The standards are being calculated on a aircraft basis, not engine basis.

For LHR and other European airports the limiting emisson might be noise, 777s A330 are rather loud from the ground

Polot wrote:

It all depends on how the emissions are calculated (which I do not know) and where the threshold is. There is no getting around the fact that in terms of raw emissions the 748’s is around double that of a 787’s with similar GE engines. The standards are being calculated on a aircraft basis, not engine basis.

You can see the CO2 rules changes here https://www.regulations.gov/document/EP ... -0276-0001

The calculation is based upon a number of factors, including MTOW, efficiency (SAR), and shadow area of the fuselage.

Note the key date of 1, Jan, 2023.

Eiszeit wrote:

For LHR and other European airports the limiting emisson might be noise, 777s A330 are rather loud from the ground

With European airlines like KLM and British only recently getting some 77W, if there will be a restriction for noise anytime soon will the new 77W be rendered useless?

Opus99 wrote:

Calhoun just going on about the 777X freighter. So I would expect green light in the “near term” as he suggested.

Boeing's CEO is not ready to acknowledge any plans for a 777XF, according to a quote in Flightglobal today.

"Calhoun stresses that he is not suggesting Boeing has already launched such an aircraft [an 777XF] or that “we have one planned”."

https://www.flightglobal.com/airframers ... 18.article

It might be difficult for Boeing to develop a 777XF that can be a strong competitor to the A350F. (?) Maybe a 787F, that can replace both the 767F and the 777F, is a better choice for Boeing.

Flightglobal:
"Boeing had asked the EPA to delay the rule’s applicability to 767Fs. The company said “unexpected economic factors” such as those caused by the pandemic warranted that it be granted more time “to upgrade or replace the 767F”.

The EPA declined"

reidar76 wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Calhoun just going on about the 777X freighter. So I would expect green light in the “near term” as he suggested.

Boeing's CEO is not ready to acknowledge any plans for a 777XF, according to a quote in Flightglobal today.

"Calhoun stresses that he is not suggesting Boeing has already launched such an aircraft [an 777XF] or that “we have one planned”."

https://www.flightglobal.com/airframers ... 18.article

It might be difficult for Boeing to develop a 777XF that can be a strong competitor to the A350F. (?) Maybe a 787F, that can replace both the 767F and the 777F, is a better choice for Boeing.

I don’t think they want to do that. XF can compete and beat 350F if they do it well. The question asked to Calhoun was on Boeing’s overall freighter strategy and he explicitly said the 777XF. both in terms of strategy and answer to 350F.

Steve Udzar I think spoke to airinsight and said he suggests Boeing focus on bringing it to market because it will solidify their already dominating lead in cargo.

Airbus has a mammoth task ahead of them and whether we like to admit it or not it is mammoth.

Jon Ostrower revealed that cargo operators were pushing Airbus to have GE engines on the 350F, whether they’ll do it. Who knows but Boeing has a lot of clout in that market and it seems like it might be enough for them to continue having a dominant lead in that market with the XF

Also Calhoun suggests XF is already part of the development budget along with max 10 and 777-9

Opus99 wrote:

Jon Ostrower revealed that cargo operators were pushing Airbus to have GE engines on the 350F.

Why would they do that?

Niloko wrote:

Eiszeit wrote:

For LHR and other European airports the limiting emisson might be noise, 777s A330 are rather loud from the ground

With European airlines like KLM and British only recently getting some 77W, if there will be a restriction for noise anytime soon will the new 77W be rendered useless?

Restrictions could be possible not an outright ban but restrictions on operating hours further for louder aircraft or runway usage. There is allways haggeling with neighbors since less noise will be in time seen as still to much.

PM wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Jon Ostrower revealed that cargo operators were pushing Airbus to have GE engines on the 350F.

Why would they do that?

I don’t think they would but it’s what they apparently want

Do I think it will be a deal breaker? No but it’s a preference that seems to exist.