keesje wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

So back to the Opening Post. Airbus needs at least 50 orders to launch. As the new built freighter market is much smaller than the passenger models, so expecting orders from from airline will be in the 10 or less number. So which 5 airlines are ready to order 10 freighters each.

UPS passed on adding 748F's last year, haven't ordered any new freighters for a while.
FedEx could be interested.
Cargolux seems to be satisfied
Amazon has not ordered any new aircraft, just conversions with the largest being 767.
Qatar could do 5 to 10

Who are likely potentials to order 50 new freighters? Discuss

Traditionally cargo conversions make up the majority of cargo fleets. But with even 767 and 777F no longer meeting future requirements, I can see Airbus taking the opportunity to launch a A350F relatively early. The fact they are even willing to fine tune deck size for pallets/ containers, shows some confidence.

Possible customers?
Atlas Air / Southern 25,
AF/KLM 8,
Qatar 6,
Emirates SkyCargo 8,
Cathay Pacific Cargo 6,
LH Cargo 10,
China Southern Cargo 4

Yes throw in Fedex & UPS, DHL for dozens. Not now, but at some point. They have aging, non compliant fleet types too.
Globally many MD11's, DC10's, 767s, 747s up for replacements later this decade.

A350s slash envorinmental foodprints & noise. Increasingly a topic.
Global taxpayers, governments got more influence recently, whether we like it or not..

https://www.freightwaves.com/news/atlas ... lout-funds
https://www.routesonline.com/news/29/br ... e-package/
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... us-flights

Okcflyer wrote:

morrisond wrote:

morrisond wrote:

No there is nothing stopping anyone from installing more seats but it is a data point.

It appears as though Boeing gets to 426 seats by using the same Higher Density Seating in business that Airbus uses to get to 369 as per the ACAPS. They have about the same distance between the L1 and L2 doors for the front cabin less the room they are taking for galleys.

Just doing some interprolation this morning. Be kind as I might have screwed up something somewhere.

Using your numbers and fuel burn and adjusting for 8,400 NM at 316 Tons and assuming in the last hours A351 fuel bun is down to about 6.1 T per hour (if I remember correctly from what you have posted previously)- that works out to about 94.464T for the 6,000 NM trip on the A351.

Taking that number and grossing it up by 15.4% for more passengers on the 779 (426 vs 369) and then taking off 11% better fuel burn per passenger gets me back to 97.020 T for the 777X. Which is not that surprising (777X takes 3% more fuel to go the same distance) as the engines are 5% better in SFC - and 8% more thrust in cruise if the ratio at cruise of an 105 vs 97K engine holds and kind of makes sense given the higher weight but much bigger wing. I think I also remember reading that the GE9X is 103.5K continuous at sea level - 110K for take off. Which is only an 6.7% difference if an Ge9X produces the same percent of thrust at altitude as the XWB97.

The MZFW for the 779 is 254.9T. MTOW is 351.5T (a difference of 96.6T) - meaning it can carry its max payload out to just about 6,000NM.

The MZFW for the 316t A351 is 220T leaving 96T for fuel - meaning it can carry its max payload out to about 6,100NM.

By Zeke's numbers an A351 is about 148T - meaning it can lift about 72T with an 316T MTOW. It has a usable Fuel Capacity of 122.5T. At 6.1T in the last hours of long distance flights that gives you about 2217 NM more range - about 8,317 NM - almost equal to the 8,400 brochure Range and that should give you enough MTOW margin to lift an additional 7.1T of Cargo.

The 77X should burn more per hour in its last hours let's call it 6.5T per hour. It has a usable fuel capacity of 159T. So it is not fuel limited. BTW for Ferry Flights the 777X could go about 10,600NM or about 22 hours!

Even if you assume its OEW weight is 184T and you assume 42.6 T for passengers that leaves 124.9T for Fuel. At 6.5T per hour for the last hours you would have another 4.3 hours of fuel left or 2073 NM range, taking you to about 8,100NM vs 7,285 Brochure range.

Boeing is sandbagging. The OEW weight for the 77X would have to be about 195T if Boeing claims about 11% better per passenger at 6,000 NM is not make believe.

Yes it is heavier - but I don't think anyone believes it's that heavy!

Just thinking through in terms of implications for a 350 Freighter and how it could offer something more to break into the market.

If it's 97T to go 6,000 NM at as MZFW of 254.9T for the 779 and they can bump this to 267.9T for a 70 M 778xF that still gives them 5,000NM range.

An 62M 772F weighs about 144.4T OEW weight - an 164T 70M 778xF should be able to carry about 104T, 170T - 98T of lift. An 772F is 10 M shorter than 773ER and 23.5T lighter or about 2.35T per meter. 2.35T x 6 meters =14.1 T - so it just depends if you think the 779 is 178T or 184T.

So that I think is the boggie Airbus has to hit 70M long (so it fits at least the same amount of containers as an 778F) and more than 104T of lift. If it wants to break into the market it has to offer something more and it has to protect itself if Boeing goes to 360T MTOW.

Which leads me back to an 350F 70M 340T MTWOW 105K engines that can lift 115T.

I don't think it needs to carry 115T over 5000nm. 4200nm or so is sufficient at max payload. This puts your MTOW about 330T which is getting more realistic.

I still think that falls into the "technically feasible" but commercially not viable category. Increasing MTOW 11T, let alone 21T, is an expensive proposition and not an investment-wise decision. If they start changing the length, that's a crap-ton of flight testing for aero performance validation that has to be repeated. If they keep existing lengths, those can be done empirically, with the flight testing focusing on a much narrow scope.

No freight airline is going to pay a $50M premium upfront for a highly optimized freighter vs a A35KF or A359F. The payback isn't there.

morrisond wrote:

Zeke's assumption on how much the passengers weigh or what is added to OEW is low.

morrisond wrote:

The initial rumour was that its an 350-950 - somewhere in between the length of the 900 and 1000.

zeke wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Zeke's assumption on how much the passengers weigh or what is added to OEW is low.

Please go and look for yourself and see what Boeing and Airbus have out in their ACAPS for weights and then come back and tell us if 100 kg per person is low.

Please cite the source of this claim that 100 kg per person that I have used is low.

morrisond wrote:

The initial rumour was that its an 350-950 - somewhere in between the length of the 900 and 1000.

Airbus has never talked about an airframe between the -900 and -1000, they have talked about a shorter aircraft the -800 and a longer aircraft than the -1000.

Please cite the source of this claim of this “350-950”.

zeke wrote:

Airbus has never talked about an airframe between the -900 and -1000 [...] “350-950”.

The proposed -950F derivative is sized between the larger A350-1000 and the smaller A350-900. According to industry sources the new variant will incorporate a new forward fuselage plug with a cargo door and local structural strengthening. The proposed hybrid aircraft, which is believed to be around 230 ft. in overall length compared to 219 ft. for the A350-900 and 242.1 ft. for the A350-1000, would utilize the larger variant’s six-wheel main landing gear design and higher-thrust Rolls-Royce Trent XWB-97 engines.

According to suppliers briefed on the project, which was first disclosed by Reuters in March, the A350 derivative could enter service early in the second half of the decade if formally launched by year-end.

Although Airbus first proposed a freighter variant of the A350 in 2007, shortly after the launch of the new airliner program, this early derivative was configured with a performance similar to the MD-11F. Its development was deferred to give priority to the passenger models. Compared to the initial offering, the updated -950F would offer greater range and payload capability, and could enable Airbus to compete more effectively both with Boeing’s popular 777-200LR-based design as well as provide growth to match the 777-8F.

Okcflyer wrote:

If they start changing the length, that's a crap-ton of flight testing for aero performance validation that has to be repeated. If they keep existing lengths, those can be done empirically, with the flight testing focusing on a much narrow scope.

No freight airline is going to pay a $50M premium upfront for a highly optimized freighter vs a A35KF or A359F. The payback isn't there.

reidar76 wrote:

zeke wrote:

Airbus has never talked about an airframe between the -900 and -1000 [...] “350-950”.

Airbus have never publicly talked about an A350-950F, but aviationweek.com cites "industry sources" and "briefed suppliers". They say Airbus is talking about an A350-950F. This possible new derivative is a shortened -1000 with a forward main deck cargo door. The overall length of the A350-950 would be just 1 feet longer than the 777-8.

https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ ... freighters

The proposed -950F derivative is sized between the larger A350-1000 and the smaller A350-900. According to industry sources the new variant will incorporate a new forward fuselage plug with a cargo door and local structural strengthening. The proposed hybrid aircraft, which is believed to be around 230 ft. in overall length compared to 219 ft. for the A350-900 and 242.1 ft. for the A350-1000, would utilize the larger variant’s six-wheel main landing gear design and higher-thrust Rolls-Royce Trent XWB-97 engines.

According to suppliers briefed on the project, which was first disclosed by Reuters in March, the A350 derivative could enter service early in the second half of the decade if formally launched by year-end.

Although Airbus first proposed a freighter variant of the A350 in 2007, shortly after the launch of the new airliner program, this early derivative was configured with a performance similar to the MD-11F. Its development was deferred to give priority to the passenger models. Compared to the initial offering, the updated -950F would offer greater range and payload capability, and could enable Airbus to compete more effectively both with Boeing’s popular 777-200LR-based design as well as provide growth to match the 777-8F.

reidar76 wrote:

Airbus have never publicly talked about an A350-950F, but aviationweek.com cites "industry sources" and "briefed suppliers".

morrisond wrote:

Great find on the weight of the Wingboxes - so an A350XWB 319T Wingbox only weighs 5.1T? Yet Fred has the 352T 77X gaining 4T on top of the 77W which presumably would be about 7T as it lifts more but metal making it weigh about the same as the A380 wingbox that can lift what 575T?

morrisond wrote:

reidar76 wrote:

zeke wrote:

Airbus has never talked about an airframe between the -900 and -1000 [...] “350-950”.

Airbus have never publicly talked about an A350-950F, but aviationweek.com cites "industry sources" and "briefed suppliers". They say Airbus is talking about an A350-950F. This possible new derivative is a shortened -1000 with a forward main deck cargo door. The overall length of the A350-950 would be just 1 feet longer than the 777-8.

https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ ... freighters

The proposed -950F derivative is sized between the larger A350-1000 and the smaller A350-900. According to industry sources the new variant will incorporate a new forward fuselage plug with a cargo door and local structural strengthening. The proposed hybrid aircraft, which is believed to be around 230 ft. in overall length compared to 219 ft. for the A350-900 and 242.1 ft. for the A350-1000, would utilize the larger variant’s six-wheel main landing gear design and higher-thrust Rolls-Royce Trent XWB-97 engines.

According to suppliers briefed on the project, which was first disclosed by Reuters in March, the A350 derivative could enter service early in the second half of the decade if formally launched by year-end.

Although Airbus first proposed a freighter variant of the A350 in 2007, shortly after the launch of the new airliner program, this early derivative was configured with a performance similar to the MD-11F. Its development was deferred to give priority to the passenger models. Compared to the initial offering, the updated -950F would offer greater range and payload capability, and could enable Airbus to compete more effectively both with Boeing’s popular 777-200LR-based design as well as provide growth to match the 777-8F.

Good find.

So if they are similar in length (presumably same number of LD3's and Pallets - or it would have to be at least an 1.5M difference)

tommy1808 wrote:

morrisond wrote:

reidar76 wrote:

Airbus have never publicly talked about an A350-950F, but aviationweek.com cites "industry sources" and "briefed suppliers". They say Airbus is talking about an A350-950F. This possible new derivative is a shortened -1000 with a forward main deck cargo door. The overall length of the A350-950 would be just 1 feet longer than the 777-8.

https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ ... freighters

Good find.

So if they are similar in length (presumably same number of LD3's and Pallets - or it would have to be at least an 1.5M difference)

Inside it would be 1.8m longer than the 778XF if the outside lenght is 30cm longer, so +8 LDs.

Best regards
Thomas

zeke wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Zeke's assumption on how much the passengers weigh or what is added to OEW is low.

Please go and look for yourself and see what Boeing and Airbus have out in their ACAPS for weights and then come back and tell us if 100 kg per person is low.

Please cite the source of this claim that 100 kg per person that I have used is low.

morrisond wrote:

The initial rumour was that its an 350-950 - somewhere in between the length of the 900 and 1000.

Airbus has never talked about an airframe between the -900 and -1000, they have talked about a shorter aircraft the -800 and a longer aircraft than the -1000.

Please cite the source of this claim of this “350-950”.

FLALEFTY wrote:

It also seems that Airbus has been busy canvassing the air cargo customer base to determine interest in launching this new freighter.

zeke wrote:

FLALEFTY wrote:

It also seems that Airbus has been busy canvassing the air cargo customer base to determine interest in launching this new freighter.

It’s pretty normal for Boeing and Airbus to approach airlines once or twice a year with a sales pitch, this will cover all of their products. I have not seen anything about an “A350-950F”, and the Reuters article it is supposed to be based off from the previous month does not refer to an A350-950F.

morrisond wrote:

zeke wrote:

FLALEFTY wrote:

It also seems that Airbus has been busy canvassing the air cargo customer base to determine interest in launching this new freighter.

It’s pretty normal for Boeing and Airbus to approach airlines once or twice a year with a sales pitch, this will cover all of their products. I have not seen anything about an “A350-950F”, and the Reuters article it is supposed to be based off from the previous month does not refer to an A350-950F.

That's what you're going to hang your hat on?

What else would you call something that is between an 900 and 1000 in length or how would you refer to that so people understood what you meant?

A358F? Oops no sorry 8 as the third digit in a model designation on a freighter in this space will probably only be on the frame that dominates this space unless Airbus goes the extra mile to give the a350F the capability it needs to make it the obvious choice.

Another 330F probably won't cut it.

Opus99 wrote:

morrisond wrote:

zeke wrote:

It’s pretty normal for Boeing and Airbus to approach airlines once or twice a year with a sales pitch, this will cover all of their products. I have not seen anything about an “A350-950F”, and the Reuters article it is supposed to be based off from the previous month does not refer to an A350-950F.

That's what you're going to hang your hat on?

What else would you call something that is between an 900 and 1000 in length or how would you refer to that so people understood what you meant?

A358F? Oops no sorry 8 as the third digit in a model designation on a freighter in this space will probably only be on the frame that dominates this space unless Airbus goes the extra mile to give the a350F the capability it needs to make it the obvious choice.

Another 330F probably won't cut it.

https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ ... hter-study
There you go. Now you’ve seen it

morrisond wrote:

That's what you're going to hang your hat on?

morrisond wrote:

Another 330F probably won't cut it.

zeke wrote:

morrisond wrote:

That's what you're going to hang your hat on?

Why not ? Do you have a more authoritative source than the manufacture? Have you see the media make reference to an A350-1100, A350-2000, A350-8000 ?

The AW&ST article claims the Reuters article as the source, yet the Reuters article makes no reference to it.

Airbus has had the A350F in the lineup since launch it was always to share the -1000 wing, engine, and gear using the -900 forward and aft fuselage sections with modified side panels removing the passenger windows and doors and adding a cargo door. This may mean they simply have decided to keep the -1000 forward fuselage which is 6 frames (3.81m) longer, the -1000 forward hold has a capacity for 4 more LD3 or 2 more pallets

Revelation wrote:

Yet that costs money, much more than just doing a A359F with A35K wing and gear as Zeke suggests, so they are in a conundrum, caught between the proverbial rock and the hard place. Same old problem: how can we get enough customers to buy enough of these so we can eventually show a profit?

Revelation wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Another 330F probably won't cut it.

I think that is the thought ringing through heads at Airbus HQ. They don't want to do a A359F or A35XF (see, I can make up names and live to tell the tale) and end up second best. Yet that costs money, much more than just doing a A359F with A35K wing and gear as Zeke suggests, so they are in a conundrum, caught between the proverbial rock and the hard place. Same old problem: how can we get enough customers to buy enough of these so we can eventually show a profit?

zeke wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Yet that costs money, much more than just doing a A359F with A35K wing and gear as Zeke suggests, so they are in a conundrum, caught between the proverbial rock and the hard place. Same old problem: how can we get enough customers to buy enough of these so we can eventually show a profit?

And yet according to you Boeing will be releasing a 764neoF and 77XF, they must be free to develop ?

zeke wrote:

You do realize the A350 side panels have no windows or door openings in them when manufactured, they are cut out with a water jet so they can be installed.

FLALEFTY wrote:

Revelation wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Another 330F probably won't cut it.

I think that is the thought ringing through heads at Airbus HQ. They don't want to do a A359F or A35XF (see, I can make up names and live to tell the tale) and end up second best. Yet that costs money, much more than just doing a A359F with A35K wing and gear as Zeke suggests, so they are in a conundrum, caught between the proverbial rock and the hard place. Same old problem: how can we get enough customers to buy enough of these so we can eventually show a profit?

If, or when Airbus chooses to launch an A350-derived freighter, I believe they will have to deal with the following issues with potential customers:

FLALEFTY wrote:

Revelation wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Another 330F probably won't cut it.

I think that is the thought ringing through heads at Airbus HQ. They don't want to do a A359F or A35XF (see, I can make up names and live to tell the tale) and end up second best. Yet that costs money, much more than just doing a A359F with A35K wing and gear as Zeke suggests, so they are in a conundrum, caught between the proverbial rock and the hard place. Same old problem: how can we get enough customers to buy enough of these so we can eventually show a profit?

If, or when Airbus chooses to launch an A350-derived freighter, I believe they will have to deal with the following issues with potential customers:

1) Amazon Prime Air - So far, Prime Air has been relying on ACMI's to handle their air freight. They tend to specify converted B767PF's or BCF's, and B738PF's. For intercontinental flying they have been mostly relying on various ACMI's chiefly using B744F's and BCF's, as needed. Since low costs are "prime" with Prime Air, I don't anticipate their current air freight strategy will change in the near future.

2) Atlas Air Group (including Atlas, Southern Air & Polar) - Currently the largest US-based ACMI, as well as being the major ACMI vendor for Prime Air and DHL. Their primary long-haul lifters are the cheap & plentiful B744F/BCF's. While the B744 freighters burn a lot of gas, they also have good range, carry plenty of payload and are cheap enough to park if freight demand cycles back down. If something newer & more efficient is needed, there are some B748F's and B777F's in the group's fleet to draw from. Atlas Group is like their customer, Prime Air, in that they are willing to keep costs low, to a fault.

3) UPS Airlines - For long-haul flying, UPS chose the B748F to connect their global hubs. Their B744F fleet is being gradually retired and replaced with the B748F's. The current CEO of UPS has already announced the company will be reducing CAPEX expenditures, which means they would be unlikely to launch a new freighter derivative in the near future. Also, UPS has been using MD-11's more on US domestic flights and less on intercontinental routes. The ability for the MD-11 to fit within the ramp space constraints at SDF, along with the MD-11's high payload capacity should keep it around until the end of the decade.

4) FedEx Express - The B777F is FedEx's main long-haul freighter. As they continue to add new B777F's to the fleet, they are steadily replacing their remaining MD-11's still doing long-haul work. Similar to their main competitor, FedEx's re-fleeting program is winding down. Also, like UPS, most of the remaining MD-11's have been reassigned to domestic routes.

5) DHL - They have long-haul services mostly flown with relatively-new B777F's operated by ACMI's AeroLogic, Southern Air and Kalitta Air. DHL also uses Polar Air's B748F's, B744F's and Kalitta's B744F's as needed. However, being a European-based company, DHL might be the primary target for Airbus as they seek a launch customer for a new long-haul freighter.

JayinKitsap wrote:

in recap:
Amazon Air to date has not leased or bought any freighter larger than the 767, nor have they bought any new build freighters.to date. If they go larger it seems the 777W P2F would be the most probable choice.

Atlas Air has a large fleet, but it appears to me they are not planning for new orders in the near future.

UPS - the CEO has mentioned several times that new capex is not planned for now.

FedEX - it seems that if any new are ordered it will be 77W P2F's.

DHL - they are a possibility for a new order, but would they order 25 or more?

There has been a lull in new build freighter orders of late. The 767F has 40 orders since 1 JAN 18, the 777F has 75, but just 13 of those are since 1 JAN 20, Silk Way just ordered 5 77F's not in the listing. Getting 50 new orders basically is 3 years of total new build orders for freighters.

Revelation wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

in recap:
Amazon Air to date has not leased or bought any freighter larger than the 767, nor have they bought any new build freighters.to date. If they go larger it seems the 777W P2F would be the most probable choice.

Atlas Air has a large fleet, but it appears to me they are not planning for new orders in the near future.

UPS - the CEO has mentioned several times that new capex is not planned for now.

FedEX - it seems that if any new are ordered it will be 77W P2F's.

DHL - they are a possibility for a new order, but would they order 25 or more?

There has been a lull in new build freighter orders of late. The 767F has 40 orders since 1 JAN 18, the 777F has 75, but just 13 of those are since 1 JAN 20, Silk Way just ordered 5 77F's not in the listing. Getting 50 new orders basically is 3 years of total new build orders for freighters.

Thanks for the excellent re-cap.

It'll be interesting to see if FX and 5X get comfortable with 77WF. They have both been wiling to buy new rather than used, but the price/performance for the 77WF may be too good to pass up. They both have MD-11F that will probably go later in the decade, one would think. That may be the eventual A350F vs 77XF battle ground.

morrisond wrote:

Revelation wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

in recap:
Amazon Air to date has not leased or bought any freighter larger than the 767, nor have they bought any new build freighters.to date. If they go larger it seems the 777W P2F would be the most probable choice.

Atlas Air has a large fleet, but it appears to me they are not planning for new orders in the near future.

UPS - the CEO has mentioned several times that new capex is not planned for now.

FedEX - it seems that if any new are ordered it will be 77W P2F's.

DHL - they are a possibility for a new order, but would they order 25 or more?

There has been a lull in new build freighter orders of late. The 767F has 40 orders since 1 JAN 18, the 777F has 75, but just 13 of those are since 1 JAN 20, Silk Way just ordered 5 77F's not in the listing. Getting 50 new orders basically is 3 years of total new build orders for freighters.

Thanks for the excellent re-cap.

It'll be interesting to see if FX and 5X get comfortable with 77WF. They have both been wiling to buy new rather than used, but the price/performance for the 77WF may be too good to pass up. They both have MD-11F that will probably go later in the decade, one would think. That may be the eventual A350F vs 77XF battle ground.

What will also help Boeing's pricing is that they have already written a lot of the program costs off on the 777x - that will definitely help with what they are able to offer them for and they will want to get the line rates up. That plus an 360T MTOW will help.

I still don't think we will see either 778F or 350-950F until later in the decade though. Airbus will have to do some serious work to raise the capacity of the 350F - but I hope they do - I'm looking forward to seeing either 134" Ge9x's or 140" Ultrafans on that relatively small wing.

mjoelnir wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Thanks for the excellent re-cap.

It'll be interesting to see if FX and 5X get comfortable with 77WF. They have both been wiling to buy new rather than used, but the price/performance for the 77WF may be too good to pass up. They both have MD-11F that will probably go later in the decade, one would think. That may be the eventual A350F vs 77XF battle ground.

What will also help Boeing's pricing is that they have already written a lot of the program costs off on the 777x - that will definitely help with what they are able to offer them for and they will want to get the line rates up. That plus an 360T MTOW will help.

I still don't think we will see either 778F or 350-950F until later in the decade though. Airbus will have to do some serious work to raise the capacity of the 350F - but I hope they do - I'm looking forward to seeing either 134" Ge9x's or 140" Ultrafans on that relatively small wing.

Why should that help Boeing in regards to pricing. Any company accounting in a normal standard way does that. In the case of the 777X, the early deferred production cost were written of, because Boeing did not expect to recover those cost inside the expected production run. That actually does not bode well for the program and therefor a 777-8F.

morrisond wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

morrisond wrote:

What will also help Boeing's pricing is that they have already written a lot of the program costs off on the 777x - that will definitely help with what they are able to offer them for and they will want to get the line rates up. That plus an 360T MTOW will help.

I still don't think we will see either 778F or 350-950F until later in the decade though. Airbus will have to do some serious work to raise the capacity of the 350F - but I hope they do - I'm looking forward to seeing either 134" Ge9x's or 140" Ultrafans on that relatively small wing.

Why should that help Boeing in regards to pricing. Any company accounting in a normal standard way does that. In the case of the 777X, the early deferred production cost were written of, because Boeing did not expect to recover those cost inside the expected production run. That actually does not bode well for the program and therefor a 777-8F.

Because it helps them be the Financially engineered company you believe them to be. By writing off the costs now they can sell frames lower than what they would have had to before and still show a profit.

mjoelnir wrote:

morrisond wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

Why should that help Boeing in regards to pricing. Any company accounting in a normal standard way does that. In the case of the 777X, the early deferred production cost were written of, because Boeing did not expect to recover those cost inside the expected production run. That actually does not bode well for the program and therefor a 777-8F.

Because it helps them be the Financially engineered company you believe them to be. By writing off the costs now they can sell frames lower than what they would have had to before and still show a profit.

Than according to your argument, the 787 is at a cost disadvantage against wide body Airbus frames due to the not yet cleared deferred cost. I believe at that time in the discussion your argument was, that Boeings pricing is not influenced by deferred cost.

mjoelnir wrote:

In the case of the 777X, the early deferred production cost were written of, because Boeing did not expect to recover those cost inside the expected production run. That actually does not bode well for the program and therefor a 777-8F.

Sokes wrote:

Could an A350-950 be a replacement for the -1000?
The -1000 doesn't sell well. I guess it's overstretched with length/ fuselage hight = 12.
A 70,1 m long plane would be 11,5, the -900 has 11.
However the B777-300ER has length/ fuselage width of 11,9. That's very long. Strange that Boeing stretched it further.

Maybe the strain on the A350-1000 engine is too much. A passenger version of the -950 could have 300 t MTOW, the freighter version 320 t as today's -1000.

Sokes wrote:

Could an A350-950 be a replacement for the -1000?
The -1000 doesn't sell well. I guess it's overstretched with length/ fuselage hight = 12.
A 70,1 m long plane would be 11,5, the -900 has 11.
However the B777-300ER has length/ fuselage width of 11,9. That's very long. Strange that Boeing stretched it further.

Maybe the strain on the A350-1000 engine is too much. A passenger version of the -950 could have 300 t MTOW, the freighter version 320 t as today's -1000.

Taxi645 wrote:

Sokes wrote:

Could an A350-950 be a replacement for the -1000?
The -1000 doesn't sell well. I guess it's overstretched with length/ fuselage hight = 12.
A 70,1 m long plane would be 11,5, the -900 has 11.
However the B777-300ER has length/ fuselage width of 11,9. That's very long. Strange that Boeing stretched it further.

Maybe the strain on the A350-1000 engine is too much. A passenger version of the -950 could have 300 t MTOW, the freighter version 320 t as today's -1000.

I reckon it's not so much the stretch but the the desire to match the 777 cababilty is hurting the 1000 in two way's:

1 The growth of the cability has somewhat hurt efficiency (engine's, induced drag, mission's that don't need the cability).

2 These efficiency hits reduce the CASM advantage a larger plane needs to be competitive with smaller planes.

What does not help is that due to Covid the market for large planes is weak at the moment.

When Covid effect has minimalize a simple stretch could reduced the CASM of the 319T MTOW version. Who know's, maybe around that time we'll see Airbus own folding wing and ultrafan thrown in for good measure.

Sokes wrote:

Could an A350-950 be a replacement for the -1000?
The -1000 doesn't sell well. I guess it's overstretched with length/ fuselage hight = 12.
A 70,1 m long plane would be 11,5, the -900 has 11.
However the B777-300ER has length/ fuselage width of 11,9. That's very long. Strange that Boeing stretched it further.

Maybe the strain on the A350-1000 engine is too much. A passenger version of the -950 could have 300 t MTOW, the freighter version 320 t as today's -1000.

JerseyFlyer wrote:

Taxi645 wrote:

Sokes wrote:

Could an A350-950 be a replacement for the -1000?
The -1000 doesn't sell well. I guess it's overstretched with length/ fuselage hight = 12.
A 70,1 m long plane would be 11,5, the -900 has 11.
However the B777-300ER has length/ fuselage width of 11,9. That's very long. Strange that Boeing stretched it further.

Maybe the strain on the A350-1000 engine is too much. A passenger version of the -950 could have 300 t MTOW, the freighter version 320 t as today's -1000.

I reckon it's not so much the stretch but the the desire to match the 777 cababilty is hurting the 1000 in two way's:

1 The growth of the cability has somewhat hurt efficiency (engine's, induced drag, mission's that don't need the cability).

2 These efficiency hits reduce the CASM advantage a larger plane needs to be competitive with smaller planes.

What does not help is that due to Covid the market for large planes is weak at the moment.

When Covid effect has minimalize a simple stretch could reduced the CASM of the 319T MTOW version. Who know's, maybe around that time we'll see Airbus own folding wing and ultrafan thrown in for good measure.

Maybe but that would support a stretch of the -900, not a shrink of the -1000, which seems to be the basis of the suggested freighter.

Taxi645 wrote:

Yes, I do also expect a simple stretch of the 900 long term. To meet the requirements of a successful freighter, it would need it's own configuration.

zeke wrote:

Taxi645 wrote:

Yes, I do also expect a simple stretch of the 900 long term. To meet the requirements of a successful freighter, it would need it's own configuration.

I would rather expect a simple shrink of the -1000 for a freighter like putting the -900 rear section on the -1000. The -1000 is already designed for much higher weights than the -900. If they could achieve a empty weight of 140 tonnes for the freighter and a MZFW of 240+ tonnes at the expense of cycles it should be very competitive. The maximum payload range (around 100 tonnes) would be very similar to a 744F, and a package freighter range (80 tonnes) of around 14-15 hours.

I think next year the 748F stops production, and in 2028 Annex 16 Vol 3 will stop the 77F as we know it today from being produced (The GE90-110 produces about 5 times higher emissions the the XWB https://www.easa.europa.eu/domains/envi ... s-databank). It will mean only aircraft with newer generation engines like the GEnx/GE9X, Trent 1000/7000/XWB will be allowed to power new WB freighters.

zeke wrote:

Taxi645 wrote:

Yes, I do also expect a simple stretch of the 900 long term. To meet the requirements of a successful freighter, it would need it's own configuration.

I would rather expect a simple shrink of the -1000 for a freighter like putting the -900 rear section on the -1000.

texl1649 wrote:

When was the last time a RR engine was sold in any reasonable quantities on a turbofan (or turbojet) freighter? Curious. Thx all. It seems to me there has been something about their service contracts (power by hour I guess, lately), that don’t work well for dedicated freighters.

zeke wrote:

Taxi645 wrote:

Yes, I do also expect a simple stretch of the 900 long term. To meet the requirements of a successful freighter, it would need it's own configuration.

I would rather expect a simple shrink of the -1000 for a freighter like putting the -900 rear section on the -1000. The -1000 is already designed for much higher weights than the -900. If they could achieve a empty weight of 140 tonnes for the freighter and a MZFW of 240+ tonnes at the expense of cycles it should be very competitive. The maximum payload range (around 100 tonnes) would be very similar to a 744F, and a package freighter range (80 tonnes) of around 14-15 hours.

I think next year the 748F stops production, and in 2028 Annex 16 Vol 3 will stop the 77F as we know it today from being produced (The GE90-110 produces about 5 times higher emissions the the XWB https://www.easa.europa.eu/domains/envi ... s-databank). It will mean only aircraft with newer generation engines like the GEnx/GE9X, Trent 1000/7000/XWB will be allowed to power new WB freighters.

morrisond wrote:

You mean we actually agree on a number? (140T OEW weight of a potential A350-950F)

FLALEFTY wrote:

As for the new EASA emissions standards due to take place in 2028, I expect the B777F & B767F will soon follow the B748F out of production. The B777F will probably still be offered up close to the deadline, but I think what's currently left on the FedEx order will finish up production. The remains of the FedEx order for the B767F's will also likely close out the non-military production of the B767. This will clear the field and allow Boeing and Airbus to go head-to-head between the B77XF and A350F to determine the future for long-haul freighters.

zeke wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

When was the last time a RR engine was sold in any reasonable quantities on a turbofan (or turbojet) freighter? Curious. Thx all. It seems to me there has been something about their service contracts (power by hour I guess, lately), that don’t work well for dedicated freighters.

Past performance does not guarantee future results, said a CEO of an airline with lots of 737-Max aircraft.

Point being, every deal needs to be assessed on its own merits.

FLALEFTY wrote:

zeke wrote:

I think next year the 748F stops production, and in 2028 Annex 16 Vol 3 will stop the 77F as we know it today from being produced (The GE90-110 produces about 5 times higher emissions the the XWB https://www.easa.europa.eu/domains/envi ... s-databank). It will mean only aircraft with newer generation engines like the GEnx/GE9X, Trent 1000/7000/XWB will be allowed to power new WB freighters.

As for the new EASA emissions standards due to take place in 2028, I expect the B777F & B767F will soon follow the B748F out of production. The B777F will probably still be offered up close to the deadline, but I think what's currently left on the FedEx order will finish up production. The remains of the FedEx order for the B767F's will also likely close out the non-military production of the B767. This will clear the field and allow Boeing and Airbus to go head-to-head between the B77XF and A350F to determine the future for long-haul freighters.

What would be interesting is if the EU and EASA take a hardline and refuses to grandfather in ops by older freighter types after 2028. Would this lead FedEx and UPS to buy the new A350F, or would it lead to enough nationalistic backlash in the US that those big orders would go to Boeing's B77XF, performance comparisons be damned?

zeke wrote:

morrisond wrote:

You mean we actually agree on a number? (140T OEW weight of a potential A350-950F)

In reply 355 you said "an A350-950F is 150T OEW", there is obviously no agreement. You may recall I stated that 150 tonnes was greater than the weight of our -1000 passenger aircraft, that is before removing some fuselage, some galleys, toilets, seats, windows, doors etc etc.

CCA wrote:

Just looked at a ERF loaded with 115T empty weight 160T