Okcflyer wrote:

Noshow wrote:

Would RR engines work for big US express freight companies?

Both FX and 5X have RR powered 757's in the fleet. Therefore, they should already have infrastructure, processes, and history in place in working together.

Further, the triple spool architecture of the Trent-XWB should actually be a plus in the freight world. Trent engines have superior climb fuel burn due to their triple spool architecture. Even in 5X/FX longhaul service, the average freight length is shorter than pax airlines, and this means the climb burn advantage can add up.

I agree, and frequent climbs at heavy weights makes durability targets important as well.
Hopefully the manufacturers can meet targets and not disappoint customers.
What is gained via low fuel burn can be lost via shorter time on wing.

Revelation wrote:

Okcflyer wrote:

Noshow wrote:

Would RR engines work for big US express freight companies?

Both FX and 5X have RR powered 757's in the fleet. Therefore, they should already have infrastructure, processes, and history in place in working together.

Further, the triple spool architecture of the Trent-XWB should actually be a plus in the freight world. Trent engines have superior climb fuel burn due to their triple spool architecture. Even in 5X/FX longhaul service, the average freight length is shorter than pax airlines, and this means the climb burn advantage can add up.

I agree, and frequent climbs at heavy weights makes durability targets important as well.
Hopefully the manufacturers can meet targets and not disappoint customers.
What is gained via low fuel burn can be lost via shorter time on wing.

And a point well made regarding engine durability. If the A35F ends up based on the -900 platform using XWB-84 engines, I think your specific point was a key driver behind that direction.

It seems that the only freighters from Airbus that have seen much success are the A300 and A310, and I suspect most of them were conversions. I find the lack of success for the A330F puzzling; the A330 trounced the 767 in the passenger market, but the 767-300F has eaten the A330’s lunch. And while it is way too soon to know how the 777X vs. A350 competition will shake out, it seems that the freighter matchup will depend in a large part on what QR decides, as at this point they seem to be the only customer ready to order a significant number of new-build large freighters. And if the A350F is to be based on the A359, I do not see it as being attractive to them. Also, down the road, the 777XF looks to be a viable 747F replacement while the A359 based freighter simply does not. So unless Airbus goes with the A3510 shortened freighter I see Boeing going ahead with the 777XF and relegating the A350F to the wilderness, just like they did with the A330F. And I don’t see Airbus committing to the A3510 based freighter unless they win QR, which with the current animosity I consider highly unlikely.

SEPilot wrote:

It seems that the only freighters from Airbus that have seen much success are the A300 and A310, and I suspect most of them were conversions. I find the lack of success for the A330F puzzling; the A330 trounced the 767 in the passenger market, but the 767-300F has eaten the A330’s lunch. And while it is way too soon to know how the 777X vs. A350 competition will shake out, it seems that the freighter matchup will depend in a large part on what QR decides, as at this point they seem to be the only customer ready to order a significant number of new-build large freighters. And if the A350F is to be based on the A359, I do not see it as being attractive to them. Also, down the road, the 777XF looks to be a viable 747F replacement while the A359 based freighter simply does not. So unless Airbus goes with the A3510 shortened freighter I see Boeing going ahead with the 777XF and relegating the A350F to the wilderness, just like they did with the A330F. And I don’t see Airbus committing to the A3510 based freighter unless they win QR, which with the current animosity I consider highly unlikely.

Rumors have it that the A350F will be based on a shortened A350-1000. That should be a frame fully matching up to the 777F. As a passenger frame the A350-1000 is a match for the 777-300ER in payload.
Shortening the A350-1000 and increasing the MTOW should bring the payload well above 100 t.

mjoelnir wrote:

SEPilot wrote:

It seems that the only freighters from Airbus that have seen much success are the A300 and A310, and I suspect most of them were conversions. I find the lack of success for the A330F puzzling; the A330 trounced the 767 in the passenger market, but the 767-300F has eaten the A330’s lunch. And while it is way too soon to know how the 777X vs. A350 competition will shake out, it seems that the freighter matchup will depend in a large part on what QR decides, as at this point they seem to be the only customer ready to order a significant number of new-build large freighters. And if the A350F is to be based on the A359, I do not see it as being attractive to them. Also, down the road, the 777XF looks to be a viable 747F replacement while the A359 based freighter simply does not. So unless Airbus goes with the A3510 shortened freighter I see Boeing going ahead with the 777XF and relegating the A350F to the wilderness, just like they did with the A330F. And I don’t see Airbus committing to the A3510 based freighter unless they win QR, which with the current animosity I consider highly unlikely.

Rumors have it that the A350F will be based on a shortened A350-1000. That should be a frame fully matching up to the 777F. As a passenger frame the A350-1000 is a match for the 777-300ER in payload.
Shortening the A350-1000 and increasing the MTOW should bring the payload well above 100 t.

It must. Bloomberg reported it’s based on the 900. And that’s the one they say they want to send for approval. That’s why there’s some confusion here on which it actually is

zeke wrote:

Your claim a few posts back was in 2016 that the OEW dropped 2%, that would be 7-7500lb, now you are saying a total of 3000lb since EIS, I think you should stop posting contradictory and misleading information. I went back and had a look at the Boeing presentations from 2016, and they said they were aiming for about 550 kg reduction.

Approximately 400kgs of which is due to removing the tail skid.

zeke wrote:

On an aircraft the size of the 77W it is very common for aircraft to have a few hundred kg difference in weight even if they were built right after each other.

I'm curious - do you mean ones built to identical specifications? I've always been curious at what the standard deviation in terms of OWE would be of two identically specced widebodies rolling off the production line.

SEPilot wrote:

It seems that the only freighters from Airbus that have seen much success are the A300 and A310, and I suspect most of them were conversions. I find the lack of success for the A330F puzzling; the A330 trounced the 767 in the passenger market, but the 767-300F has eaten the A330’s lunch. And while it is way too soon to know how the 777X vs. A350 competition will shake out, it seems that the freighter matchup will depend in a large part on what QR decides, as at this point they seem to be the only customer ready to order a significant number of new-build large freighters. And if the A350F is to be based on the A359, I do not see it as being attractive to them. Also, down the road, the 777XF looks to be a viable 747F replacement while the A359 based freighter simply does not. So unless Airbus goes with the A3510 shortened freighter I see Boeing going ahead with the 777XF and relegating the A350F to the wilderness, just like they did with the A330F. And I don’t see Airbus committing to the A3510 based freighter unless they win QR, which with the current animosity I consider highly unlikely.

I think people forget that Boeing is much longer in business than Airbus.

And according to numbers the A300/310 was a roaring success. There were done over 200 conversions at EFW. FedEx bought 42 new ones. Hongkong air 8 new. UPS 53 new and EAT 1 new.
That are over 300 frames. Conversions stopped when stock run out.

The A330 was at the time the only frame they could offer as wide body freighter and it did not fit UPS and FedEx. How people now conclude that Airbus can not and will not build a successful freighter in the future, I am not able to understand. Most wide body freighters were developed from a wide body passenger frame.
Anyway, with what do people compare the A330F? The 767F, was there not the main competition the A300? Perhaps it is better to compare the A330F with the DC10 and are not there many freighters conversions and conversions have just started in regards to the A330F.

I do not look at Bloomberg as an oracle and I a sure that Airbus will not use the A350-900 as a base, if the A350-1000 is better for the job. It could of course be that customers want a freighter with the A350-900 volume and capabilities.

Anyway all the talk I have seen, was a A350-1000 frame shortened to A350-900 length, that would be a very capable freight in regards to payload. If customers want volume, an full sized A350-1000 could do well.

zkojq wrote:

zeke wrote:

On an aircraft the size of the 77W it is very common for aircraft to have a few hundred kg difference in weight even if they were built right after each other.

I'm curious - do you mean ones built to identical specifications?

Yes, and true.

It's a bit off topic, so I'll keep it short - I've seen B767-300ER specs at one of the users - they've been all delivered within +/- 3 years, and weight tolerance was +300/-150 kg from average weight. All weights affected.

Cheers,
Adam

gloom wrote:

zkojq wrote:

zeke wrote:

On an aircraft the size of the 77W it is very common for aircraft to have a few hundred kg difference in weight even if they were built right after each other.

I'm curious - do you mean ones built to identical specifications?

Yes, and true.

It's a bit off topic, so I'll keep it short - I've seen B767-300ER specs at one of the users - they've been all delivered within +/- 3 years, and weight tolerance was +300/-150 kg from average weight. All weights affected.

Cheers,
Adam

Yes, +/- 0.5% is a typical scatter around average MEW for the same specification.

Opus99 wrote:

I just hope Boeing is marketing and pushing as aggressively with their own 777XF. I believe they must protect freight market at all costs. Narrow body market is not currently their turf. No need to forgo widebody/freight market

They are out of luck till they have a "777X" certified to tack an "F" on.
The view to its future is diffuse

WIederling wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

I just hope Boeing is marketing and pushing as aggressively with their own 777XF. I believe they must protect freight market at all costs. Narrow body market is not currently their turf. No need to forgo widebody/freight market

They are out of luck till they have a "777X" certified to tack an "F" on.
The view to its future is diffuse

Why can’t they launch it without certification? What is the difference between any other program that launches with multiple variants. You bring 777-9 to market then bring -8F to market. What’s the rocket science for you there?

I don't think it is a good time to launch a freighter now, as with all the pandemic-ad-hoc-entered-service freighter in the market, when passenger travel volume resume and wodebody passenger aircraft reenter service, the freight capacity is going to exceed needed level.

c933103 wrote:

I don't think it is a good time to launch a freighter now, as with all the pandemic-ad-hoc-entered-service freighter in the market, when passenger travel volume resume and wodebody passenger aircraft reenter service, the freight capacity is going to exceed needed level.

Even if they launch it today, it will not be available before at least five years.

c933103 wrote:

I don't think it is a good time to launch a freighter now, as with all the pandemic-ad-hoc-entered-service freighter in the market, when passenger travel volume resume and wodebody passenger aircraft reenter service, the freight capacity is going to exceed needed level.

You bring a plane to market when there is demand for it. With passenger demand (especially wide body, I.e. longhaul demand) in the toilet, freight demand is up. And QR is looking to buy 30 new freighters. This is exactly the right time to bring the 777XF to market, because if they don’t, it may never get off the ground. When passenger demand returns so will belly capacity, and the demand for dedicated freighters will be less. Who knows the next time an airline will be looking for 30 new built dedicated large freighters? If this order goes to the A350F the 777XF will very likely never get launched, and the 77F will die. If Boeing DOES launch the 777XF anyway chances are very good that neither it nor the A350F will ever make money, especially with the 77W conversions becoming available. In the past there have been relatively few 12 year old frames available for conversion; now, due to several large 77W users with the policy of dumping frames after only 12 years there is essentially an unlimited supply. This will make the demand for new builds much less. Only those who need the high density capacity that the 77W conversions cannot offer will buy the new builds. So for the 777XF it is likely now or never.

If they want to get back into factory built freighter market, there is not any other option but to launch the A350 freighter.
Does it sound correct?

Opus99 wrote:

WIederling wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

I just hope Boeing is marketing and pushing as aggressively with their own 777XF. I believe they must protect freight market at all costs. Narrow body market is not currently their turf. No need to forgo widebody/freight market

They are out of luck till they have a "777X" certified to tack an "F" on.
The view to its future is diffuse

Why can’t they launch it without certification? What is the difference between any other program that launches with multiple variants. You bring 777-9 to market then bring -8F to market. What’s the rocket science for you there?

Of course Boeing can launch the 777XF without certifying the 777-9 or even the 777-8 first. But I assume, that Airbus can produce better numbers or more accurate numbers with the A350 in service.

mjoelnir wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

WIederling wrote:

They are out of luck till they have a "777X" certified to tack an "F" on.
The view to its future is diffuse

Why can’t they launch it without certification? What is the difference between any other program that launches with multiple variants. You bring 777-9 to market then bring -8F to market. What’s the rocket science for you there?

Of course Boeing can launch the 777XF without certifying the 777-9 or even the 777-8 first. But I assume, that Airbus can produce better numbers or more accurate numbers with the A350 in service.

An "F" would be a derivative of the 777-8X. you need the base airframe certified before you can certify a derivative.
( or you need to certify the F as standalone .. or as lead in the family. MY understanding is that certification modalities are in the process of being revisited and introduced uncertainties for the process. From the outside the process looks mired. no progress.)

WIederling wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Why can’t they launch it without certification? What is the difference between any other program that launches with multiple variants. You bring 777-9 to market then bring -8F to market. What’s the rocket science for you there?

Of course Boeing can launch the 777XF without certifying the 777-9 or even the 777-8 first. But I assume, that Airbus can produce better numbers or more accurate numbers with the A350 in service.

An "F" would be a derivative of the 777-8X. you need the base airframe certified before you can certify a derivative.
( or you need to certify the F as standalone .. or as lead in the family. MY understanding is that certification modalities are in the process of being revisited and introduced uncertainties for the process. From the outside the process looks mired. no progress.)

You don’t need the 8X to certify the F. It’s like saying you needed the 747-8i to certify the 747-8F. Meanwhile the F actually came first. So I’m not sure what you're saying.

Secondly. Whatever certification changes will be faced by both OEMs on this matter from what you explain. Since both are “derivatives”

Certifying the 8X will happen with the F. Thé 8X is an F the F is an 8X. The passenger version will still need to be certified again anyway. But the F will obviously come first

WIederling wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Why can’t they launch it without certification? What is the difference between any other program that launches with multiple variants. You bring 777-9 to market then bring -8F to market. What’s the rocket science for you there?

Of course Boeing can launch the 777XF without certifying the 777-9 or even the 777-8 first. But I assume, that Airbus can produce better numbers or more accurate numbers with the A350 in service.

An "F" would be a derivative of the 777-8X. you need the base airframe certified before you can certify a derivative.
( or you need to certify the F as standalone .. or as lead in the family. MY understanding is that certification modalities are in the process of being revisited and introduced uncertainties for the process. From the outside the process looks mired. no progress.)

The “base” certified airframe would be the 779. Everything else is derived off that plane’s certificate -the base doesn’t have to be certified before launching new derivatives. Apparently Boeing is looking at a completely different length for the -8F than the passenger -8.

It is the exact same with the A350. The A359 is the base certified airframe. The -1000 and so called -950F (which would be a completely different length than any of the current passenger A350s) are/would be derivatives that used/will be using the A359’s certificate as the starting point.

There is no rule that says passenger model has to be certified before the freighter model. Just look at the 747-8. And probably A350-950 because I bet there would eventually be a passenger -950 offered in the future if airlines ask for it.

Polot wrote:

...
And probably A350-950 because I bet there would eventually be a passenger -950 offered in the future if airlines ask for it.

Do you think there will be airlines that are interested by this passenger -950, whatever it is?

Opus99 wrote:

Secondly. Whatever certification changes will be faced by both OEMs on this matter from what you explain. Since both are “derivatives”

Obviously not true as Boeing has not got a 777X base airframe certified, depending on what Airbus wants to,do, they could just develop an STC like they have done on other freighter models which is a far simpler process.

Also the viability of a 777X freighter business case is unknown to me, with that extra fuselage and heavier engines than the 77F/77WP2F, will Boeing really be looking at $420-430 million sticker price (my estimate based off the following sticker prices 77F $352 million, 77L $347 million, 77W $375 million, 778 $410 million, 779 $442 million https://www.boeing.com/company/about-bca/), for something that carries less payload weight and similar volume to a 777WP2F and only costs 80 million. A350 list prices are between $320 and $370 million, a freighter would in my estimation probably come in around the $340-$350 million sticker price, best part of $100 million difference in sticker price for what business case gain ?

We all know airlines don’t pay sticker prices, however safe to say the 777X freighter would be proportionally 20-25% more expensive than the A350 freighter after discounts.

zeke wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Secondly. Whatever certification changes will be faced by both OEMs on this matter from what you explain. Since both are “derivatives”

Obviously not true as Boeing has not got a 777X base airframe certified, depending on what Airbus wants to,do, they could just develop an STC like they have done on other freighter models which is a far simpler process.

Also the viability of a 777X freighter business case is unknown to me, with that extra fuselage and heavier engines than the 77F/77WP2F, will Boeing really be looking at $420-430 million sticker price (my estimate based off the following sticker prices 77F $352 million, 77L $347 million, 77W $375 million, 778 $410 million, 779 $442 million https://www.boeing.com/company/about-bca/), for something that carries less payload weight and similar volume to a 777WP2F and only costs 80 million. A350 list prices are between $320 and $370 million, a freighter would in my estimation probably come in around the $340-$350 million sticker price, best part of $100 million difference in sticker price for what business case gain ?

We all know airlines don’t pay sticker prices, however safe to say the 777X freighter would be proportionally 20-25% more expensive than the A350 freighter after discounts.

Sticker price does not mean anything. in 2018 the difference was 10 million dollars in sticker price. That argument is moot. Airbus will tell you sticker price does not mean anything.

A350-1000 goes for 160-170million.

Like WW says, Airbus build fantastic aircraft but they cost too much.

Obviously 777X certification needs to happen first. But even after that

777-8F needs to be certified in the way a350F would need to be certified as they are not base models is what i mean.

Look at sticker price of Max and 320. is that what you will use to derive their current price?

Lets get real here

Opus99 wrote:

Secondly. Whatever certification changes will be faced by both OEMs on this matter from what you explain. Since both are “derivatives”

Airbus never worked under a certification regime where they self certified and decided themselves what the certification would look like. Airbus did not produce a certification scandal.

So IMO nothing changes for Airbus. Certification rules were set by EASA and Airbus did what they were supposed to do.

Otherwise the basis for the A350 would be a derivative of a more modern frame, so grandfathering would be less of a problem.

mjoelnir wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Secondly. Whatever certification changes will be faced by both OEMs on this matter from what you explain. Since both are “derivatives”

Airbus never worked under a certification regime where they self certified and decided themselves what the certification would look like. Airbus did not produce a certification scandal.

So IMO nothing changes for Airbus. Certification rules were set by EASA and Airbus did what they were supposed to do.

Otherwise the basis for the A350 would be a derivative of a more modern frame, so grandfathering would be less of a problem.

Good luck if you think FAA will certify that aircraft based on what EASA says. And no FAA. No FedEx no UPS. Times have changed

Or does EASA certify for FAA?

The rules that are being changed affect everybody. Airbus has to deal with it. Boeing has to deal with it. And the rules HAVE changed

Opus99 wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Secondly. Whatever certification changes will be faced by both OEMs on this matter from what you explain. Since both are “derivatives”

Airbus never worked under a certification regime where they self certified and decided themselves what the certification would look like. Airbus did not produce a certification scandal.

So IMO nothing changes for Airbus. Certification rules were set by EASA and Airbus did what they were supposed to do.

Otherwise the basis for the A350 would be a derivative of a more modern frame, so grandfathering would be less of a problem.

Good luck if you think FAA will certify that aircraft based on what EASA says. And no FAA. No FedEx no UPS. Times have changed

Or does EASA certify for FAA?

The rules that are being changed affect everybody. Airbus has to deal with it. Boeing has to deal with it. And the rules HAVE changed

EASA did not produce a certification scandal, the FAA did. Airbus was not involved in a certification mess up, Boeing was. The non USA certification authorities put their foot down after the 737MAX certification mess.
Your idea, that because the FAA did sloppy certifications, everybody else must have done it, is just a dream.
The FAA and Boeing had to clean up their act. I assume certification in the USA is now similar as it was at EASA. As in the certification authorities decide how to certify, not the producer.
Times indeed have changed.

I think what he's saying is that where EASA no longer rubber stamps FAA certs, neither does the FAA rubber stamp for EASA. Boeing's fiasco changed the process and it impacts everyone, not just themselves and the FAA.

mjoelnir wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

Airbus never worked under a certification regime where they self certified and decided themselves what the certification would look like. Airbus did not produce a certification scandal.

So IMO nothing changes for Airbus. Certification rules were set by EASA and Airbus did what they were supposed to do.

Otherwise the basis for the A350 would be a derivative of a more modern frame, so grandfathering would be less of a problem.

Good luck if you think FAA will certify that aircraft based on what EASA says. And no FAA. No FedEx no UPS. Times have changed

Or does EASA certify for FAA?

The rules that are being changed affect everybody. Airbus has to deal with it. Boeing has to deal with it. And the rules HAVE changed

EASA did not produce a certification scandal, the FAA did. Airbus was not involved in a certification mess up, Boeing was. The non USA certification authorities put their foot down after the 737MAX certification mess.
Your idea, that because the FAA did sloppy certifications, everybody else must have done it, is just a dream.
The FAA and Boeing had to clean up their act. I assume certification in the USA is now similar as it was at EASA. As in the certification authorities decide how to certify, not the producer.
Times indeed have changed.

FAA will no longer rubber stamp EASAs work and vice versa. We know that the rules of the game have changed. So whatever Boeing has to go through with the FAA. Airbus has to go through it. Its not a matter of who had scandals. Boeing has changed the game for everybody. So what you think Airbus will bring their jet and FAA will say sure have a nice time? EASA

And FAA has to adhere to new rules about derivatives etc. Boeing and Airbus must follow the FAA if they want their planes to fly in America.

Secondly, it’s not just self certification that has changed. May also add but correct me if wrong does Airbus not self certify?

Opus99 wrote:

Sticker price does not mean anything. in 2018 the difference was 10 million dollars in sticker price.

That is false and misleading, there has never been a $10 million dollar difference in the A350 and 777X price in 2018.

https://jetlinemarvel.net/airbus-boeing ... ices-2018/

Opus99 wrote:

A350-1000 goes for 160-170million.

Provide the source, it does not match the data posted on the aircraft values and leading threads.

Opus99 wrote:

Like WW says, Airbus build fantastic aircraft but they cost too much.

You are saying the Airbus is too expensive and yet airlines should then spend an extra 25% to purchase a 777X ?

What logic is that?

Opus99 wrote:

777-8F needs to be certified in the way a350F would need to be certified as they are not base models is what i mean.

No the process is not the same, Airbus has around 30 types of A350s already certified by the FAA and EASA as evidenced on the FAA and EASA TCDS, Airbus also has a production certificate and permits these variations to be made, and the airframe has significant in service experience.

Opus99 wrote:

Look at sticker price of Max and 320. is that what you will use to derive their current price?

Lets get real here

I posted and you quoted my post “ We all know airlines don’t pay sticker prices, however safe to say the 777X freighter would be proportionally 20-25% more expensive than the A350 freighter after discounts.”

After discounts the Max is proportionally lower than the 787, which is proportionally lower than the 777X, the amount of discounting is similar between the OEMs.

With the A350 being around 25% cheaper before or after discounts than a 777X (otherwise they would be selling 777X at 787 prices as A350s are sold at 787 prices as evidenced in the prices and valuations threads), an airline could buy 5 A350 freighters for the cost of 4 777X freighetrs.

zeke wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Sticker price does not mean anything. in 2018 the difference was 10 million dollars in sticker price.

That is false and misleading, there has never been a $10 million dollar difference in the A350 and 777X price in 2018.

https://jetlinemarvel.net/airbus-boeing ... ices-2018/

Opus99 wrote:

A350-1000 goes for 160-170million.

Provide the source, it does not match the data posted on the aircraft values and leading threads.

Opus99 wrote:

Like WW says, Airbus build fantastic aircraft but they cost too much.

You are saying the Airbus is too expensive and yet airlines should then spend an extra 25% to purchase a 777X ?

What logic is that?

Opus99 wrote:

777-8F needs to be certified in the way a350F would need to be certified as they are not base models is what i mean.

No the process is not the same, Airbus has around 30 types of A350s already certified by the FAA and EASA as evidenced on the FAA and EASA TCDS, Airbus also has a production certificate and permits these variations to be made, and the airframe has significant in service experience.

Opus99 wrote:

Look at sticker price of Max and 320. is that what you will use to derive their current price?

Lets get real here

I posted and you quoted my post “ We all know airlines don’t pay sticker prices, however safe to say the 777X freighter would be proportionally 20-25% more expensive than the A350 freighter after discounts.”

After discounts the Max is proportionally lower than the 787, which is proportionally lower than the 777X, the amount of discounting is similar between the OEMs.

With the A350 being around 25% cheaper before or after discounts than a 777X (otherwise they would be selling 777X at 787 prices as A350s are sold at 787 prices as evidenced in the prices and valuations threads), an airline could buy 5 A350 freighters for the cost of 4 777X freighetrs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weP8bz4EHyo (even though at this time Boeing had changed it)

https://modernairliners.com/boeing-777/boeing-777x/ - this article first came out in 2018 btw

https://airwaysmag.com/industry/the-boe ... ly-starts/ Towards the end of 2017. -

Its obvious in the middle of 2018 they changed the list price.

There you go. Okay it was 20 million list price difference. 388M and 366M between 1000 and 777-9. So what is misleading there? Boeing used to list the jet at that price till they changed it probably to make the deals look bigger than they really were.

Thats from Cirium btw. I can link it below, if you have access, take a look:

https://dashboard.cirium.com/app/fleet/ ... ary/160897

CX 350-1000 delivered in March Valued at 164,700,000.

Do you think 1000s are cheap? that level of efficiency do you think airbus extracted for free? all those advanced materials, lets not forget commonality with the 350-900 is at about 70% in terms of build. Airbus built that plane OUT. to get the level of efficiency they did.

1000 is fantastic but it is expensive, so is the 777X but please the difference in price is not going to be a determinant here because it is basically the same thing. as we can see from WW and Richard Quest

777-9 may very well be more expensive but not 25% are you kidding? over 200 million?? Thats the price airbus was charging for a 380. and WW said that was too expensive part of the reason they could not take more than 12. If Boeing was charging over 200 million for a jet you think WW would've ordered 18 with 24 options?? Lets get real

also in that video WW was referring mostly to the 380 but generally. As we've argued. airbus has a cost problem on the 350 which you deny but their CEO said with his mouth and they need to solve that cost problem to be more competitive on the widebody front. That came from the CEOs mouth, so there's no arguing you'll do here that will change that.

Opus99 wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Good luck if you think FAA will certify that aircraft based on what EASA says. And no FAA. No FedEx no UPS. Times have changed

Or does EASA certify for FAA?

The rules that are being changed affect everybody. Airbus has to deal with it. Boeing has to deal with it. And the rules HAVE changed

EASA did not produce a certification scandal, the FAA did. Airbus was not involved in a certification mess up, Boeing was. The non USA certification authorities put their foot down after the 737MAX certification mess.
Your idea, that because the FAA did sloppy certifications, everybody else must have done it, is just a dream.
The FAA and Boeing had to clean up their act. I assume certification in the USA is now similar as it was at EASA. As in the certification authorities decide how to certify, not the producer.
Times indeed have changed.

FAA will no longer rubber stamp EASAs work and vice versa. We know that the rules of the game have changed. So whatever Boeing has to go through with the FAA. Airbus has to go through it. Its not a matter of who had scandals. Boeing has changed the game for everybody. So what you think Airbus will bring their jet and FAA will say sure have a nice time? EASA

And FAA has to adhere to new rules about derivatives etc. Boeing and Airbus must follow the FAA if they want their planes to fly in America.

Secondly, it’s not just self certification that has changed. May also add but correct me if wrong does Airbus not self certify?

I do not accept the equivalence you are trying to push. Yes Airbus is self certifying, but no not to the level Boeing did. You have perhaps not followed that one new Airbus model, the A330-800 and one new version of a model, the 251 t A330-900, were certified last year. Both certification according to the original certification plan and both without trouble by the FAA.
In regards to the certification of a A350F compared to the 777X, the A350F would be based on a rather new clean sheet frame, that hardly has build up a long list of things that need to be grandfathered.

mjoelnir wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

EASA did not produce a certification scandal, the FAA did. Airbus was not involved in a certification mess up, Boeing was. The non USA certification authorities put their foot down after the 737MAX certification mess.
Your idea, that because the FAA did sloppy certifications, everybody else must have done it, is just a dream.
The FAA and Boeing had to clean up their act. I assume certification in the USA is now similar as it was at EASA. As in the certification authorities decide how to certify, not the producer.
Times indeed have changed.

FAA will no longer rubber stamp EASAs work and vice versa. We know that the rules of the game have changed. So whatever Boeing has to go through with the FAA. Airbus has to go through it. Its not a matter of who had scandals. Boeing has changed the game for everybody. So what you think Airbus will bring their jet and FAA will say sure have a nice time? EASA

And FAA has to adhere to new rules about derivatives etc. Boeing and Airbus must follow the FAA if they want their planes to fly in America.

Secondly, it’s not just self certification that has changed. May also add but correct me if wrong does Airbus not self certify?

I do not accept the equivalence you are trying to push. Yes Airbus is self certifying, but no not to the level Boeing did. You have perhaps not followed that one new Airbus model, the A330-800 and one new version of a model, the 251 t A330-900, were certified last year. Both certification according to the original certification plan and both without trouble by the FAA.
In regards to the certification of a A350F compared to the 777X, the A350F would be based on a rather new clean sheet frame, that hardly has build up a long list of things that need to be grandfathered.

I am equating 777-8F and 350F

Why are you using a program to compare to a variant.

The 777X will be certified as a program based on the 777-9.

The 8F as a variant.

Whatever the 8F on it’s own has to go through. The A350F has to go through. They are both variants. Ahan. What is so hard to understand.

Whatever the FAA will subject the 8F to the 350F is going through the exact same thing.

Don’t you understand the 8F will be going through certification AFTER the 777X program has been certified. So at that stage there is no difference in certification process of the 8F and 350F as BOTH their programs have been certified AT THAT POINT. This is very straightforward stuff

In the beginning, the A350-1000 was pitched gainst the 777-300ER.

I am today wondering if Airbus is pitching the A350F against the 777F or against the upcoming 777-8F?

THis is not at all an A vs B stuff. I am just trying to understand the market Airbus is targeting.

VV wrote:

In the beginning, the A350-1000 was pitched gainst the 777-300ER.

I am today wondering if Airbus is pitching the A350F against the 777F or against the upcoming 777-8F?

THis is not at all an A vs B stuff. I am just trying to understand the market Airbus is targeting.

I think 777F. They can’t pitch against what they don’t know.

Opus99 wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

FAA will no longer rubber stamp EASAs work and vice versa. We know that the rules of the game have changed. So whatever Boeing has to go through with the FAA. Airbus has to go through it. Its not a matter of who had scandals. Boeing has changed the game for everybody. So what you think Airbus will bring their jet and FAA will say sure have a nice time? EASA

And FAA has to adhere to new rules about derivatives etc. Boeing and Airbus must follow the FAA if they want their planes to fly in America.

Secondly, it’s not just self certification that has changed. May also add but correct me if wrong does Airbus not self certify?

I do not accept the equivalence you are trying to push. Yes Airbus is self certifying, but no not to the level Boeing did. You have perhaps not followed that one new Airbus model, the A330-800 and one new version of a model, the 251 t A330-900, were certified last year. Both certification according to the original certification plan and both without trouble by the FAA.
In regards to the certification of a A350F compared to the 777X, the A350F would be based on a rather new clean sheet frame, that hardly has build up a long list of things that need to be grandfathered.

I am equating 777-8F and 350F

Why are you using a program to compare to a variant.

The 777X will be certified as a program based on the 777-9.

The 8F as a variant.

Whatever the 8F on it’s own has to go through. The A350F has to go through. They are both variants. Ahan. What is so hard to understand.

Whatever the FAA will subject the 8F to the 350F is going through the exact same thing.

Don’t you understand the 8F will be going through certification AFTER the 777X program has been certified. So at that stage there is no difference in certification process of the 8F and 350F as BOTH their programs have been certified AT THAT POINT. This is very straightforward stuff

Yes you compare the 777-8F or what ever, with a certification based on grandfathering stuff from the 777 and the 777-9, that you take as a base, not yet certified. And the 777X will still be a derivative of the old 777.
The A350F will be based on the clean sheet A350-900/1000, hardly any grandfathering involved, if you can not see the difference, that is your problem.

Furthermore, Boeing and the FAA are coming out of a mess, with everything they now do under a microscope and rightly so. hereas Airbus comes from a line of rather new certification, that run without problems and the FAA had no reason to complain about. The last certifications happend after the FAA had to clean up their mess. If you do not see the difference there, that is again your problem.

Opus99 wrote:

VV wrote:

In the beginning, the A350-1000 was pitched gainst the 777-300ER.

I am today wondering if Airbus is pitching the A350F against the 777F or against the upcoming 777-8F?

THis is not at all an A vs B stuff. I am just trying to understand the market Airbus is targeting.

I think 777F. They can’t pitch against what they don’t know.

Can't they guess?

If they pitch it against the current 777F then it would not be going anywhere.

mjoelnir wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

I do not accept the equivalence you are trying to push. Yes Airbus is self certifying, but no not to the level Boeing did. You have perhaps not followed that one new Airbus model, the A330-800 and one new version of a model, the 251 t A330-900, were certified last year. Both certification according to the original certification plan and both without trouble by the FAA.
In regards to the certification of a A350F compared to the 777X, the A350F would be based on a rather new clean sheet frame, that hardly has build up a long list of things that need to be grandfathered.

I am equating 777-8F and 350F

Why are you using a program to compare to a variant.

The 777X will be certified as a program based on the 777-9.

The 8F as a variant.

Whatever the 8F on it’s own has to go through. The A350F has to go through. They are both variants. Ahan. What is so hard to understand.

Whatever the FAA will subject the 8F to the 350F is going through the exact same thing.

Don’t you understand the 8F will be going through certification AFTER the 777X program has been certified. So at that stage there is no difference in certification process of the 8F and 350F as BOTH their programs have been certified AT THAT POINT. This is very straightforward stuff

Yes you compare the 777-8F or what ever, with a certification based on grandfathering stuff from the 777 and the 777-9, that you take as a base, not yet certified. And the 777X will still be a derivative of the old 777.
The A350F will be based on the clean sheet A350-900/1000, hardly any grandfathering involved, if you can not see the difference, that is your problem.

Furthermore, Boeing and the FAA are coming out of a mess, with everything they now do under a microscope and rightly so. hereas Airbus comes from a line of rather new certification, that run without problems and the FAA had no reason to complain about. The last certifications happend after the FAA had to clean up their mess. If you do not see the difference there, that is again your problem.

777XF will be certified as a VARIANT of the 777X. Why do you think the 777X has been delayed? Because of grandfathering. What has gone on with the 777X is being handled on the 777-9. The 777-8 will not have to go through that again. Does that make sense to you?

STC has already told us that 777X is being delayed because of grandfathering regulation changes being made. Why would a variant go through the same thing that the original one has gone though?

It’s like saying the MAX 7 will go through what the MAX 8 went through? Which it’s obviously not.

Which is why I say 350F and 777-8F. Going through the same thing.

So you think after Boeing will go to FAA and say certify the 777-8F as a derivative of 777F? Or as a variant of 777X which is barely being allowed to be grandfathered.

Please let’s be realistic here.

Anyway. It’s not certification that will be the determinant of failure or success.

Opus99 wrote:

Anyway. It’s not certification that will be the determinant of failure or success.

Indeed, it’s about whether the payload-range with an increased OWE and ‘specific range’ increase in can still be competitive given the relatively low utilisation skewing costs towards reduced capital vs reduced fuel burn compared to the pax variant. Both the 77XF and the A350F share this self same problem to a degree but the carrot here is that the next generation of wide bodies will suffer even worse with this and may well be completely uncompetitive giving the ‘victor’ from this a long standing role in this market.

In my view Boeing should have just slapped the Ge9x on the 77W/L/F and called it a day. The A350F would not compete with that IMHO.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Something folks may be missing another factor in this conversation. According to local Memphis newpaper - changes to the tax laws before and specifically in the CARES Act enabled FX to not pay any income tax. Atlas and 3 others went further and took hundreds of millions of direct payments. I wasn't able determine if UPS did but I believe they did not and they actually paid a pretty high tax rate.

So how do think Congress will react to anyone other than UPS buying Airbus aircraft? What do you think the Govt Affairs types at FX and those other 4 companies are telling senior management? FX has already been on the defensive about this tax issue.

https://www.commercialappeal.com/story/ ... 851934001/

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Something folks may be missing another factor in this conversation. According to local Memphis newpaper - changes to the tax laws before and specifically in the CARES Act enabled FX to not pay any income tax. Atlas and 3 others went further and took hundreds of millions of direct payments. I wasn't able determine if UPS did but I believe they did not and they actually paid a pretty high tax rate.

So how do think Congress will react to anyone other than UPS buying Airbus aircraft? What do you think the Govt Affairs types at FX and those other 4 companies are telling senior management? FX has already been on the defensive about this tax issue.

https://www.commercialappeal.com/story/ ... 851934001/

To be fair.
DL, UA and AA took Covid grants. DL ordered from Airbus last month or so. UA about to order from them. So I’m not sure Congress can do much

flipdewaf wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Anyway. It’s not certification that will be the determinant of failure or success.

Indeed, it’s about whether the payload-range with an increased OWE and ‘specific range’ increase in can still be competitive given the relatively low utilisation skewing costs towards reduced capital vs reduced fuel burn compared to the pax variant. Both the 77XF and the A350F share this self same problem to a degree but the carrot here is that the next generation of wide bodies will suffer even worse with this and may well be completely uncompetitive giving the ‘victor’ from this a long standing role in this market.

In my view Boeing should have just slapped the Ge9x on the 77W/L/F and called it a day. The A350F would not compete with that IMHO.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Apparently volume is now prioritised over payload it seems. Due to the age of e-commerce

https://leehamnews.com/2021/04/06/boein ... hreatened/

“On its face, having three fuselage lengths on the 777X assembly line seems unnecessary. Why not simply build a freighter version of the 777-8P?
The choice came down to favoring payload or range, said a former Boeing salesman who was assigned to the X program. A freighter based on the -8P maximized payload. A slight stretch maximized range.
In an era of e-commerce, a freighter tends to max out by volume before weight, favoring range.“

Opus99 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Anyway. It’s not certification that will be the determinant of failure or success.

Indeed, it’s about whether the payload-range with an increased OWE and ‘specific range’ increase in can still be competitive given the relatively low utilisation skewing costs towards reduced capital vs reduced fuel burn compared to the pax variant. Both the 77XF and the A350F share this self same problem to a degree but the carrot here is that the next generation of wide bodies will suffer even worse with this and may well be completely uncompetitive giving the ‘victor’ from this a long standing role in this market.

In my view Boeing should have just slapped the Ge9x on the 77W/L/F and called it a day. The A350F would not compete with that IMHO.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Apparently volume is now prioritised over payload it seems. Due to the age of e-commerce

https://leehamnews.com/2021/04/06/boein ... hreatened/

“On its face, having three fuselage lengths on the 777X assembly line seems unnecessary. Why not simply build a freighter version of the 777-8P?
The choice came down to favoring payload or range, said a former Boeing salesman who was assigned to the X program. A freighter based on the -8P maximized payload. A slight stretch maximized range.
In an era of e-commerce, a freighter tends to max out by volume before weight, favoring range.“

That makes sense although I think there might be a miscommunication there. A stretch wouldn’t maximise range but would increase useful volume at range. There are more defined optimums for volume per unit drag. At 95t payload then the range can be more in line with what is expected from the 77L. To be honest I’m not up on what missions (payload/range) are being undertaken right now.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Keep your posts to the topic, it’s about an A350 freighter not about the 737MAX or any other passenger aircraft

Opus99 wrote:

https://leehamnews.com/2021/04/06/boein ... hreatened/

“On its face, having three fuselage lengths on the 777X assembly line seems unnecessary. Why not simply build a freighter version of the 777-8P?
The choice came down to favoring payload or range, said a former Boeing salesman who was assigned to the X program. A freighter based on the -8P maximized payload. A slight stretch maximized range.
In an era of e-commerce, a freighter tends to max out by volume before weight, favoring range.“

The reason is in the article and is the same for the 777 The main deck has to be optimised for a optimum pallet loading using the example below with a standard pallet size that’s 12’ long you can imagine that it’s unlikely to fit perfectly in either aircraft but does when the aircraft reaches 230 ft this will include optimising the lower cargo too which may become sub optimal with the stretch. There’s no point carrying carrying empty space in the main deck for the aircrafts entire life by fixing its length to the passenger aircraft lengths.
The 777-300ERSF will suffer this problem and likely have dead space on the main deck.

A350F Fuselage Length
A350-900: 219 ft
A350F: est 230 ft
A350-1000: 242 ft

The shrink optimizes the center of gravity loadability and pallet load capabilities.

If the proposed A350F can load 110 tons (5 more than a 777F) and haul it 5000NM (same as MZFW range as a 777F), they're onto a winner, as the A350F will burn in the order of 15-20% less fuel, as well as incurring lower en-route and landing charges due to it's lower MTOW.

779JetBlast wrote:

One factor that's not being mentioned is that FX and 5X would have to buy new pallets and containers for the A350F. The fuselage of the A350F is narrower than that of the 777f. So in other words, what fits in the 777F won't fit in the A350F. I just don't see it happening.

All of the integrators operates B757s, B767s, A300s, MD-11s and 747s, two of the biggest ones also operates 777s. Neither of those aircraft have the same fuselage size, yet those integrators seem to cope just fine. If the priority is to ramp transfer ULDs straight from one aircraft to another, you sacrifice a bit in available volume in order to achieve that (e.g. B757 to A300, A300 to 777, 777 to 747. It's not such a big deal; FX and 5X operates large fleets of 767s which can only accept LD3 as centre-line load in the lower-deck, yet they manage just fine weaving that fleet into their A300, MD-11, 777 and 747 fleets, which can accept the LD3s side-by-side.

An A350F will be able to load an AMA in exactly the same way as a 777F, namely as centre-line loads. On the 747s they are loaded side-by-side, and that's hardly a problem.

I do have a sneaking suspicion that the A350F will be able to load the exact same ULD types (or pallet contours) side-by-side as the 777F. Volume wise there shouldn't be much daylight between the two either.

The only question is whether Airbus can get one or two of the major integrators (DHL, FedEx or UPS) as well as a few of the big general cargo carriers (LH, QR, EK, SQ, CX, CV) to spring for a combined order of 50 copies. If they can achieve that, the outlook for the 777F looks dire and the 777-8F will need to produce some very compelling numbers to be competitive. I suspect that if Airbus launches the A350F based on the hypothetical "-950", Boeing will size the 777XF between the -8 and -9 in order to gain a meaningful volumetric advantage, thereby compensating for the higher purchasing and operating costs. If Airbus stays with the -900 size, there may be enough (volumetric) daylight between that and a -8 based freighter to make sense.

Opus99 wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weP8bz4EHyo (even though at this time Boeing had changed it)

https://modernairliners.com/boeing-777/boeing-777x/ - this article first came out in 2018 btw

https://airwaysmag.com/industry/the-boe ... ly-starts/ Towards the end of 2017. -

Its obvious in the middle of 2018 they changed the list price.

There you go. Okay it was 20 million list price difference. 388M and 366M between 1000 and 777-9. So what is misleading there? Boeing used to list the jet at that price till they changed it probably to make the deals look bigger than they really were.

Again you are knowingly posting false and misleading information, the BA order was in 2019. IAG said in their press release the list price on the 777-9 was $442 million

“The Boeing 777-9 list price is approximately US$442.2 million.”, which is over 20% greater than the A350-1000 list price at $366 million. That is a $76 million dollar difference, not the significantly false and misleading $10 or 20 million you are claiming.

From https://www.iairgroup.com/en/newsroom/p ... -02-2019-a

flipdewaf wrote:

In my view Boeing should have just slapped the Ge9x on the 77W/L/F and called it a day. The A350F would not compete with that IMHO.

I’m not sure if that is possible, one of the changes on the 77X was to move the spanwise location of the engine further from the fuselage.

B777LRF wrote:

If the proposed A350F can load 110 tons (5 more than a 777F) and haul it 5000NM (same as MZFW range as a 777F), they're onto a winner, as the A350F will burn in the order of 15-20% less fuel, as well as incurring lower en-route and landing charges due to it's lower MTOW.

I don’t think that would be possible with the A350, and I would not be surprised if a 777-8 based freighter could not match the 777F payload either.

zeke wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weP8bz4EHyo (even though at this time Boeing had changed it)

https://modernairliners.com/boeing-777/boeing-777x/ - this article first came out in 2018 btw

https://airwaysmag.com/industry/the-boe ... ly-starts/ Towards the end of 2017. -

Its obvious in the middle of 2018 they changed the list price.

There you go. Okay it was 20 million list price difference. 388M and 366M between 1000 and 777-9. So what is misleading there? Boeing used to list the jet at that price till they changed it probably to make the deals look bigger than they really were.

Again you are knowingly posting false and misleading information, the BA order was in 2019. IAG said in their press release the list price on the 777-9 was $442 million

“The Boeing 777-9 list price is approximately US$442.2 million.”, which is over 20% greater than the A350-1000 list price at $366 million. That is a $76 million dollar difference, not the significantly false and misleading $10 or 20 million you are claiming.

From https://www.iairgroup.com/en/newsroom/p ... -02-2019-a

I did say it had changed by then. Have any comments concerning the other two links I posted? Or are you good?

Obviously richard quest got those figures from the 2018 deal.

Of course you can’t comment on those because it doesn’t suit your narrative

zeke wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

I don’t think that would be possible with the A350, and I would not be surprised if a 777-8 based freighter could not match the 777F payload either.

It would require an OEW in the order of 120, a MZFW of 230, a MTOW of 300 and a MLAW of 240. In rough numbers, and it does look a bit on the ambitious side. Can they even get to MTOW 300 with a double-bogie MLG or would it require the triple-bogie from the -1000?

zeke wrote:

B777LRF wrote:

If the proposed A350F can load 110 tons (5 more than a 777F) and haul it 5000NM (same as MZFW range as a 777F), they're onto a winner, as the A350F will burn in the order of 15-20% less fuel, as well as incurring lower en-route and landing charges due to it's lower MTOW.

I don’t think that would be possible with the A350

These number are what Airbus showed it's potential customers, according to Leeham news: https://leehamnews.com/2021/04/06/boein ... hreatened/