Here are two fairly recent articles (but older than the Airbus’announcement about the A350F) in which we get the views of Cargolux’s CEO Richard Forson regarding their fleet renewal.

Some considerations support buying new aircraft, while other ones are more in favour of the P2F route. We might see Cargolux taking a bit of both in the end.

Here is a quote supporting the idea of buying new aircraft:

Mr Forson adds that governments’ focus on emissions could also hinder aircraft financing – especially with few freighter programmes launching.

About the prospective new freighter programmes:

“At this point, the latest technology is the 747-8F, that’s from 10 years ago. There are no developments, going forward.”
Boeing’s mooted plans for a 777X freighter and Airbus’s for an A350 are not concrete, he notes.

On the other hand, he makes it clear that he wants to preserve cash as mush as possible in the view that its business is highly cyclical and that he his not expecting any government support in a worst case scenario (like the passenger airlines have benefited):

“It’s all relative, the money,” laughs CEO Richard Forson. “It’s one year (2020) when we’ve made a significant profit. But this is one of the most capital-intensive industries – that money is only four aircraft.
“And things have changed now. In the past, we had Eximbank support for buying aircraft.”
“I need to build up the resilience of the organisation. I want to keep as much cash as I can. You never know when you are going to need it.”

Then he carries on justifying why he needs to build up so much resilience and he is stating (in the second link) that he is clearly looking at a P2F option:

"The specific one we are looking very closely at is the conversion of the 777-300ER into a freigher"

He is balancing this by saying that he would also look at both the 777XF and the A350F if they would ever be launched.

All in all, going forward we could see Cargolux investing in a core fleet of new built freighters complimented with a fleet of P2F aircraft which would bring some flexibility in their supply of capacity. If this would be the case, considering that the 773ER is the only P2F candidate for Cargolux, the 777XF could have an edge as a new built thanks to its commonality of the 77W. In other interviews Forson explained how much he valued their homogeneous fleet of 747s. He is reluctant to add complexity in its fleet (by having more than one type) but he understands that it will be unavoidable in the future (when he will have a mixed fleet of 747 and twin-engine freighters).

https://theloadstar.com/cargolux-chief-forson-talks-integrity-staff-the-fleet-and-the-bank-balance/

https://airwaysmag.com/airlines/cargolux-is-considering-purchasing-boeing-777-300er-freighter-aircraft/

Did I read your post correctly, you are advocating a new engine for an aircraft that has not even entered service yet ?

Sort of yes. I don't get this CORSIA thing and how it will change requirements. Is this firmed up? Do we know what is finally demanded? It looks like triggering more new aircraft sales with 2028 plus conforming engines. So wait until the final moment, PIP or upgrade with the then latest and greatest and release this version finally.

This might be why both A and B are hesitant to launch their latest freighters. They must be future proof.

zeke wrote:

morrisond wrote:

We will see. We are told time and time again that fuel cost is not that big an issue for Freighters. Capital cost is the big Monkey and that is where the 777ERSF comes in.

A350F or 778XF won't be cheap.

You would probably be able to buy and convert at least 2 777ERSF's for the price of one new A350F or 778XF and those also have to compete with end of line 777F.

I think you are in the correct ballpark in that 2x77WP2F aircraft for the price of one A350F, I think the 778F would be around 20% more expensive than a A350F.

I did some back of the envelope numbers on purchase price and operating costs, for the fist 7 years the 77WP2F would have the lowest total cost (purchase cost plus operating cost) of the 3, thereafter the A350F would have the lowest total cost. The numbers I have done would suggest that over a 15 year period the 778F would not achieve lower total cost than a 77WP2F (sensitivity analysis suggest fuel would need to be on average to be 75% higher than todays price to match the 777WP2F total cost over 15 years). I was basing this on an average utilization of 14 hrs a day, 340 days a year.

Everything above is opinion, it is based upon my best guess.

Good analysis. Thank you for putting the effort in. Now what happens if fuel is 15% cheaper in the future?

Personally I think we are headed for a time when the price of oil goes a whole bunch lower as we build out our electric future and sovereign states need the revenue and collusion on the price of oil stops working. Of course that could be offset by taxes on Carbon based fuel.

I think over the next 15-20 years Oil producers will be lucky to average $40 per barrel (adjusted for inflation).

Historically anything over $60 per barrel would be considered expensive Inflation adjusted. I think it really comes down to how much are they going to tax Aviation fuel.

Good Chart site you can look at historic prices. https://www.macrotrends.net/1369/crude- ... tory-chart

Here is a good long term chart of Jet Fuel prices. https://transportgeography.org/contents ... el-prices/

Personally I beleive that if we do not get economic collapse where the world can relieve itself of its debt load we are in for decades of low inflation and low growth. Our debt overhang and ageing/slowing in population growth will keep a lid on things.

Noshow wrote:

Did I read your post correctly, you are advocating a new engine for an aircraft that has not even entered service yet ?

Sort of yes. I don't get this CORSIA thing and how it will change requirements. Is this firmed up? Do we know what is finally demanded? It looks like triggering more new aircraft sales with 2028 plus conforming engines. So wait until the final moment, PIP or upgrade with the then latest and greatest and release this version finally.

This might be why both A and B are hesitant to launch their latest freighters. They must be future proof.

The Genx, Trent 1000/7000, XWB, and GE9X will be compliant.

tomcat wrote:

In other interviews Forson explained how much he valued their homogeneous fleet of 747s. He is reluctant to add complexity in its fleet (by having more than one type) but he understands that it will be unavoidable in the future (when he will have a mixed fleet of 747 and twin-engine freighters).

Half of his fleet is 744 derivatives, they would already be facing some operational restrictions which is only going to get worse. Being based in Europe, the 777WP2F would have to be high risk as it will not meet the 2028 standards.

Just thinking out loud. If an A350F's real competition is the 777ERSF and density doesn't matter - why make something smaller than an A350-1000/77W and go to the expense of certifying a different fuselage length?

Spend your time and Engineering effort on the A351 to turn it into a freighter and focus on growing its abilities (MFZFW,MLW, MTOW) - which could also help the passenger variant and an eventual stretch.

At 319T how much could an A351F lift out to 5,000NM? How would this compare to 777ERSF? Or A350-950F?

In various articles talking about possible A350-1100/2000 variants they talk about the XWB-97 as having the ability to have a thrust bump.

How much could an 330T or 340T A351F lift out to 5,000nm?

Increasing the abilities of a model seems to be the Airbus way and one they are very good at with little weight increase.

It would be unlikely for Boeing to do something other than an 70M 778F due to the heavy weight of the structure - would an 74M A351F 330/340T have better sales prospects, it would beat it in volume, how close could it come in lift?

What are the rumoured Project Sunrise mods? Could these be what is needed to make an A351F a runaway success?

zeke wrote:

tomcat wrote:

In other interviews Forson explained how much he valued their homogeneous fleet of 747s. He is reluctant to add complexity in its fleet (by having more than one type) but he understands that it will be unavoidable in the future (when he will have a mixed fleet of 747 and twin-engine freighters).

Half of his fleet is 744 derivatives, they would already be facing some operational restrictions which is only going to get worse. Being based in Europe, the 777WP2F would have to be high risk as it will not meet the 2028 standards.

They are indeed mentioning that the oldest aircraft in their fleet will be on their way out by 2025/26.

It's not clear to me how the 2028 standards will be applied and per these articles, Forson doesn't express any reservation for the 777WP2F other than the general statement about the difficulty of financing P2F aircraft in the future. I guess that if there is any risk of facing operational restrictions in Europe, they will identify it.

Given the potential volume of 777W available for conversion, is there any chance that GE could develop an upgrade to make the existing GE90s compliant with the 2028 standards or is it technically out of reach anyway?

Noshow wrote:

then mount the next engine generation or PIP on the 777XF, CORSIA compliant, and use this engine for the passenger 9Xneo as well.

you want to 'neo' a brand new aircraft with a state of the art engine even though it hasn't even entered revenue service as of yet?>

tomcat wrote:

is there any chance that GE could develop an upgrade to make the existing GE90s compliant with the 2028 standards

Yes, and they already did... it's the new state of the art engine on the 777-9.

morrisond wrote:

Just thinking out loud. If an A350F's real competition is the 777ERSF and density doesn't matter - why make something smaller than an A350-1000/77W and go to the expense of certifying a different fuselage length?

That’s not something that is an issue with the A350, if the join the -900 front or the -1000 front to the middle, it’s essentially the same style of part. Both barrels are made up of two side panel and a top and bottom panel. The same number of sections make up a -900 as. -1000.

The length change is within the part, and if they use a -900 part they have already designed that. That would make the front and rear holds symmetrical volume and easier for load and balance.

tomcat wrote:

zeke wrote:

tomcat wrote:

In other interviews Forson explained how much he valued their homogeneous fleet of 747s. He is reluctant to add complexity in its fleet (by having more than one type) but he understands that it will be unavoidable in the future (when he will have a mixed fleet of 747 and twin-engine freighters).

Half of his fleet is 744 derivatives, they would already be facing some operational restrictions which is only going to get worse. Being based in Europe, the 777WP2F would have to be high risk as it will not meet the 2028 standards.

They are indeed mentioning that the oldest aircraft in their fleet will be on their way out by 2025/26.

It's not clear to me how the 2028 standards will be applied and per these articles, Forson doesn't express any reservation for the 777WP2F other than the general statement about the difficulty of financing P2F aircraft in the future. I guess that if there is any risk of facing operational restrictions in Europe, they will identify it.

Given the potential volume of 777W available for conversion, is there any chance that GE could develop an upgrade to make the existing GE90s compliant with the 2028 standards or is it technically out of reach anyway?

Do the planes need a new certificate of airworthiness after conversion? If no, which seems likely to me, there is no problem.

zeke wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Just thinking out loud. If an A350F's real competition is the 777ERSF and density doesn't matter - why make something smaller than an A350-1000/77W and go to the expense of certifying a different fuselage length?

That’s not something that is an issue with the A350, if the join the -900 front or the -1000 front to the middle, it’s essentially the same style of part. Both barrels are made up of two side panel and a top and bottom panel. The same number of sections make up a -900 as. -1000.

The length change is within the part, and if they use a -900 part they have already designed that. That would make the front and rear holds symmetrical volume and easier for load and balance.

Umm - you would still have to certify it and it would be a lot more effort than turning an A351 into an A351F.

With symmetrical holds the COG would probably be too far aft with a 900 front and 1000 rear. Almost all commercial aircraft seem to have a longer front section - there is probably a good reason.

I've got a better idea - just stick with the 1000 Fuselage length.

Rekoff wrote:

Do the planes need a new certificate of airworthiness after conversion? If no, which seems likely to me, there is no problem.

They get issued when the aircraft first is added on the register. So if an aircraft if on the FAA register (N register) and gets converted, it is converted under an STC process. It remains under the same N register when it works back for a FAA airline.

If however it starts off the process as a N registered, and after conversion joint Cargolux, it gets put on the LX register and needs a new EASA airworthiness certificate.

morrisond wrote:

Umm - you would still have to certify it and it would be a lot more effort than turning an A351 into an A351F.

With symmetrical holds the COG would probably be too far aft with a 900 front and 1000 rear. Almost all commercial aircraft seem to have a longer front section - there is probably a good reason.

I've got a better idea - just stick with the 1000 Fuselage length.

The front and rear sections are already certified, they already have part manufacturing approval for them, they already have a process in place how they move them through their supply chain, that is how they are able to make the -900 and -1000 on the same line.

The wall sections for the -900 and -1000 are made without windows or doors, they actually use a water cutter to make those openings in the part.



Image from The Evolution of the Composite Fuselage: A Manufacturing Perspective - Scientific Figure on ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/A35 ... _330942653 [accessed 6 Aug, 2021]

Passenger aircraft tend to have more passengers at the rear than front, they have to design the holds and wing location with that in mind.

zeke wrote:

Rekoff wrote:

Do the planes need a new certificate of airworthiness after conversion? If no, which seems likely to me, there is no problem.

They get issued when the aircraft first is added on the register. So if an aircraft if on the FAA register (N register) and gets converted, it is converted under an STC process. It remains under the same N register when it works back for a FAA airline.

If however it starts off the process as a N registered, and after conversion joint Cargolux, it gets put on the LX register and needs a new EASA airworthiness certificate.

Thanks for detailing. So this means freight operators will have less choice but can continue their P2F conversions after 2027, as expected. I'm also pretty sure for those cases where a new certificate would be needed, there will be workaround constructions through leasing companies.

Rekoff wrote:

Thanks for detailing. So this means freight operators will have less choice but can continue their P2F conversions after 2027, as expected. I'm also pretty sure for those cases where a new certificate would be needed, there will be workaround constructions through leasing companies.

It is up to individual airports, they have their own quota or curfew systems in place.

For example ZRH

“ According to Article 39 (and revisions per AIP Switzerland AD2.18 Local Regulations and AD2.21 Noise Abatement Procedures) of the ordinance concerning the aviation infrastructure (OAI) utmost restraint will be exercised when granting authorization for take-off and landing at night between 2100 and 0500* UTC. Air carriers may not expect that authorizations for night flight movements will be granted systematically for the period 2100* until 0500* UTC. For complete details, see AIP Switzerland LSZH AD2.18 and AD 2.21 and information below.

http://www.admin.ch/ch/f/rs/748_131_1/a39a.html defines the limit for 2100-2330 departures is less than 96 EPNL)

http://www.admin.ch/ch/f/rs/748_131_1/a39a.html defines how to compute the index noise value

The definition of the ZRH noise index that governs eligibility to operate in the shoulder period of 2100 - 2330 nightly.

The ZRH noise index is the EPNL value that is the arithmetic average of the Chapter 3 Flyover and Lateral cert levels.

To depart between 2100 - 2330, the value must be less than 96 EPNL. Airplanes flying non-stop distances greater than 5000 km are permitted to depart if their noise index is less than 98 EPNL.

The 96 and 98 EPNL limits apply specifically to GVA and ZRH.”

https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeing ... loten.html

The 77W is around 99-100 EPNL. The A350-1000 is below 95, and an aircraft between the size of the -900 and -1000 would likely be around 93.

https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/defaul ... ssue21.pdf

zeke wrote:

Rekoff wrote:

Thanks for detailing. So this means freight operators will have less choice but can continue their P2F conversions after 2027, as expected. I'm also pretty sure for those cases where a new certificate would be needed, there will be workaround constructions through leasing companies.

It is up to individual airports, they have their own quota or curfew systems in place.

For example ZRH

“ According to Article 39 (and revisions per AIP Switzerland AD2.18 Local Regulations and AD2.21 Noise Abatement Procedures) of the ordinance concerning the aviation infrastructure (OAI) utmost restraint will be exercised when granting authorization for take-off and landing at night between 2100 and 0500* UTC. Air carriers may not expect that authorizations for night flight movements will be granted systematically for the period 2100* until 0500* UTC. For complete details, see AIP Switzerland LSZH AD2.18 and AD 2.21 and information below.

http://www.admin.ch/ch/f/rs/748_131_1/a39a.html defines the limit for 2100-2330 departures is less than 96 EPNL)

http://www.admin.ch/ch/f/rs/748_131_1/a39a.html defines how to compute the index noise value

The definition of the ZRH noise index that governs eligibility to operate in the shoulder period of 2100 - 2330 nightly.

The ZRH noise index is the EPNL value that is the arithmetic average of the Chapter 3 Flyover and Lateral cert levels.

To depart between 2100 - 2330, the value must be less than 96 EPNL. Airplanes flying non-stop distances greater than 5000 km are permitted to depart if their noise index is less than 98 EPNL.

The 96 and 98 EPNL limits apply specifically to GVA and ZRH.”

https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeing ... loten.html

The 77W is around 99-100 EPNL. The A350-1000 is below 95, and an aircraft between the size of the -900 and -1000 would likely be around 93.

https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/defaul ... ssue21.pdf

That's for noise, but CO2 emissions have to comply to the ICAO regulations, which was what we discussed. Not sure why you moved to sound emissions?

My point was, if Cargolux cant get a new certificate due to ICAO and jurisdiction moving from FAA to EASA, they could circumvent by leasing it from a company that doesnt need to recertify the plane. Or buy it after it is converted under the same certification. Or do you need to recertify irrespective of owner if you operate it within Europe? Because if this is not tied to ownership, no 777's, 767's or older planes could change continents after 2027

Rekoff wrote:

That's for noise, but CO2 emissions have to comply to the ICAO regulations, which was what we discussed. Not sure why you moved to sound emissions?

My point was, if Cargolux cant get a new certificate due to ICAO and jurisdictional moving from FAA to EASA, they could circumvent by leasing it from a company that doesnt need to recertify the plane. Or buy it after it is converted under the same certification. Or do you need to recertify irrespective of owner if you operate it within Europe? Because if this is not tied to ownership, no 777's, 767's or older planes could change continents after 2027

It’s all emissions, noise included. Noise is what is restricting the 744 already. ICAO develops standards and recommended practices, individual countries implement them differently, some go beyond the minimum of ICAO.

A certificate of airworthiness is not certification, certification is a TCDS or STC.

To place the aircraft under the Luxembourg register, it need to have a local certificate of airworthiness, certificate of registration, certificate of maintenance, certificate of noise, radio license etc.

zeke wrote:

Rekoff wrote:

That's for noise, but CO2 emissions have to comply to the ICAO regulations, which was what we discussed. Not sure why you moved to sound emissions?

My point was, if Cargolux cant get a new certificate due to ICAO and jurisdictional moving from FAA to EASA, they could circumvent by leasing it from a company that doesnt need to recertify the plane. Or buy it after it is converted under the same certification. Or do you need to recertify irrespective of owner if you operate it within Europe? Because if this is not tied to ownership, no 777's, 767's or older planes could change continents after 2027

It’s all emissions, noise included. Noise is what is restricting the 744 already. ICAO develops standards and recommended practices, individual countries implement them differently, some go beyond the minimum of ICAO.

A certificate of airworthiness is not certification, certification is a TCDS or STC.

To place the aircraft under the Luxembourg register, it need to have a local certificate of airworthiness, certificate of registration, certificate of maintenance, certificate of noise, radio license etc.

When does it need to be under that register? If they own it or also when they lease it ?

Rekoff wrote:

When does it need to be under that register? If they own it or also when they lease it ?

Their licence to operate (air operates certificate) states which aircraft it can operate as part of the airline in order to exercise international flights under the AOC. Generally in order to exercise negotiated air traffic rights between countries it is limited to airlines from each country, and those countries generally have regulations on what aircraft can be used, normally have to be registered there. This stops the Flag of convenience (FOC) practice common in shipping.

One off charters and wet lease operations are different, they operate under a 3rd country where the aircraft is registered. Charters however cannot run under fixed schedules between fixed ports.

I hazard a guess that the insurer of the aircraft would only insure an aircraft with all certifications in place. No insurer would insure a new building unless it can be shown to have its certificate of occupancy. The lender will insist on being a named insured to protect its investment, etc. In Washington State, if electrical work done without a permit causes a fire, the insurer can choose to not pay the claim.

Zeke has it right, certification is based on the operating location by the local authorities, that follow the requirements presented by the lead agencies and the plane manufacturer. As I noted for buildings, each project is unique, constructed under the supervision of the building department of the town. That building department has its own local codes, but also follows the codes provided by the state, and country. The adopted law of the local identifies the specific codes to be followed, including the Federal laws such as the ADA, and the model codes like the National Electrical Code, International Building Code, etc. In those codes it cites all over the place other codes for say pressure vessels, energy codes, life safety codes, etc. Most manufactured items have to be produced by a listed facility that designed it, then had it tested by a recognized organization such as UL. Things like lubricants and fuels also have required standards and only the proper ones are to be used.

Yes, cheating can happen, however those caught faking tests or certifications will spend many years breaking rocks in prison. Their companies can pay massive fines. Look at VW with the Diesel engine fracas. They had to reimburse all the owners basically the full vehicle price, receive the cars back but were not allowed to sell any of them. I believe parts not at issue could be sold, but basically the only value is as scrap.

JayinKitsap wrote:

I hazard a guess that the insurer of the aircraft would only insure an aircraft with all certifications in place. No insurer would insure a new building unless it can be shown to have its certificate of occupancy. The lender will insist on being a named insured to protect its investment, etc. In Washington State, if electrical work done without a permit causes a fire, the insurer can choose to not pay the claim.

Zeke has it right, certification is based on the operating location by the local authorities, that follow the requirements presented by the lead agencies and the plane manufacturer. As I noted for buildings, each project is unique, constructed under the supervision of the building department of the town. That building department has its own local codes, but also follows the codes provided by the state, and country. The adopted law of the local identifies the specific codes to be followed, including the Federal laws such as the ADA, and the model codes like the National Electrical Code, International Building Code, etc. In those codes it cites all over the place other codes for say pressure vessels, energy codes, life safety codes, etc. Most manufactured items have to be produced by a listed facility that designed it, then had it tested by a recognized organization such as UL. Things like lubricants and fuels also have required standards and only the proper ones are to be used.

Yes, cheating can happen, however those caught faking tests or certifications will spend many years breaking rocks in prison. Their companies can pay massive fines. Look at VW with the Diesel engine fracas. They had to reimburse all the owners basically the full vehicle price, receive the cars back but were not allowed to sell any of them. I believe parts not at issue could be sold, but basically the only value is as scrap.

With "workarounds" i didnt mean cheating but constructions that would prevent the need for a new airworthiness certificate. But it looks to me like the P2F 777 market will be greatly reduced to local conversions only after 2027.

I wonder if China may set up a new international freight airline with 50 or so A350Fs, or one of their large existing airlines may expand freight operations substantially.

China may want to export its goods on its own air freighters, rather like the massive freight trains they send overland to Europe. In a world of potential trade and transport sanctions, the more control China has of its supply routes, the better, from its perspective. A fleet more cost-efficient than western legacy freight airlines could only benefit China financially, as well as strategically.

Revelation wrote:

So Leeham asserts the program is launched and says the Board would not launch without customers "ready to go" and that 50 orders were needed to launch, therefore Airbus must have 50 orders "ready to go", whatever that means.

While I have no doubt the A350F has garnered interest from carriers and wil be successful, I object to painting the current situation as moth than an Authority to Offer. The cited article contains all of the typical weasel words present when you are trying to lead your reader to draw a specific conclusion (A350F is launched with customers lined up), while being able to claim you never actually stated anything with definity: 'could be', 'believes', 'would be', 'is talking', 'market sources tell us', 'information obtained'.

So, here's my challenge... If Airbus announces a launch customer or launch customers for that 50 needed frames before Dec 31, 2021, then in this moment Leeham is probably correct in the assumptions that they lead us to in this article and I'll admit to being overly cynical. If not, then Airbus is fishing for customers, while Leeham is fishing for headlines to catch readers by offering an Exclusive on suppositions. Again, I have no doubt it will launch, but the whole thing might be more in it's infancy than the article suggest. Let's see. Will be an interesting rest of 2021!!

In the old days this phase would be called "authorization to offer" NOT "launch". There is no use in mixing up terms. A launch is the green light for a defined program. Typically with more than one customer having signed conditional orders.

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

Revelation wrote:

So Leeham asserts the program is launched and says the Board would not launch without customers "ready to go" and that 50 orders were needed to launch, therefore Airbus must have 50 orders "ready to go", whatever that means.

While I have no doubt the A350F has garnered interest from carriers and wil be successful, I object to painting the current situation as moth than an Authority to Offer. The cited article contains all of the typical weasel words present when you are trying to lead your reader to draw a specific conclusion (A350F is launched with customers lined up), while being able to claim you never actually stated anything with definity: 'could be', 'believes', 'would be', 'is talking', 'market sources tell us', 'information obtained'.

So, here's my challenge... If Airbus announces a launch customer or launch customers for that 50 needed frames before Dec 31, 2021, then in this moment Leeham is probably correct in the assumptions that they lead us to in this article and I'll admit to being overly cynical. If not, then Airbus is fishing for customers, while Leeham is fishing for headlines to catch readers by offering an Exclusive on suppositions. Again, I have no doubt it will launch, but the whole thing might be more in it's infancy than the article suggest. Let's see. Will be an interesting rest of 2021!!

Correct on all above. Leeham is best understood as the Airbus-preferred PR channel, a la Pravda imho. Yes, Scott is from the PNW area but he clearly has had an axe to grind for over two decades with Boeing (and in favor of IAM751/unions etc). No one who has read that site for more than a few months wouldn't recognize this. The source for these articles matters, and it's not just ferpe etc. The funniest part of their evolution was when they tried to champion Mitsubishi doing stuff at Moses lake etc. as proof the region's industry would simply evolve without Boeing. That all sure worked out.

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

Revelation wrote:

So Leeham asserts the program is launched and says the Board would not launch without customers "ready to go" and that 50 orders were needed to launch, therefore Airbus must have 50 orders "ready to go", whatever that means.

While I have no doubt the A350F has garnered interest from carriers and wil be successful, I object to painting the current situation as moth than an Authority to Offer. The cited article contains all of the typical weasel words present when you are trying to lead your reader to draw a specific conclusion (A350F is launched with customers lined up), while being able to claim you never actually stated anything with definity: 'could be', 'believes', 'would be', 'is talking', 'market sources tell us', 'information obtained'.

So, here's my challenge... If Airbus announces a launch customer or launch customers for that 50 needed frames before Dec 31, 2021, then in this moment Leeham is probably correct in the assumptions that they lead us to in this article and I'll admit to being overly cynical. If not, then Airbus is fishing for customers, while Leeham is fishing for headlines to catch readers by offering an Exclusive on suppositions. Again, I have no doubt it will launch, but the whole thing might be more in it's infancy than the article suggest. Let's see. Will be an interesting rest of 2021!!

For what it's worth, the French newspapers talk about a launch. They are not questioning the fact that this would not exactly be a launch or whatever.

Here is my own translation of the relevant part of one of these articles (same tone in in La Tribune newspaper as well):

(...)
An A350F to compete with Boeing
They have also decided to finally launch the freighter version of their A350. It's a project which has been contemplated for years and which is meant to challenge Boeing which traditionally enjoys a near-monopoly on this segment.
"Following the board's approval, we are expanding our portfolio with a freighter derivative of the A350 in order to address the demand of the customers for a competition and a greater efficiency on this market segment", Guillaume Faury justified

https://www.lesechos.fr/industrie-services/air-defense/apres-un-premier-semestre-solide-airbus-releve-ses-objectifs-pour-2021-1335527

Basically the airlines want more competition and Airbus is happy to bring it. Somehow, it reminds me the reasons why Airbus launched the A380, they were obsessed with breaking the 747 monopoly at that time.

tomcat wrote:

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

Revelation wrote:

So Leeham asserts the program is launched and says the Board would not launch without customers "ready to go" and that 50 orders were needed to launch, therefore Airbus must have 50 orders "ready to go", whatever that means.

While I have no doubt the A350F has garnered interest from carriers and wil be successful, I object to painting the current situation as moth than an Authority to Offer. The cited article contains all of the typical weasel words present when you are trying to lead your reader to draw a specific conclusion (A350F is launched with customers lined up), while being able to claim you never actually stated anything with definity: 'could be', 'believes', 'would be', 'is talking', 'market sources tell us', 'information obtained'.

So, here's my challenge... If Airbus announces a launch customer or launch customers for that 50 needed frames before Dec 31, 2021, then in this moment Leeham is probably correct in the assumptions that they lead us to in this article and I'll admit to being overly cynical. If not, then Airbus is fishing for customers, while Leeham is fishing for headlines to catch readers by offering an Exclusive on suppositions. Again, I have no doubt it will launch, but the whole thing might be more in it's infancy than the article suggest. Let's see. Will be an interesting rest of 2021!!

For what it's worth, the French newspapers talk about a launch. They are not questioning the fact that this would not exactly be a launch or whatever.

Here is my own translation of the relevant part of one of these articles (same tone in in La Tribune newspaper as well):

(...)
An A350F to compete with Boeing
They have also decided to finally launch the freighter version of their A350. It's a project which has been contemplated for years and which is meant to challenge Boeing which traditionally enjoys a near-monopoly on this segment.
"Following the board's approval, we are expanding our portfolio with a freighter derivative of the A350 in order to address the demand of the customers for a competition and a greater efficiency on this market segment", Guillaume Faury justified

https://www.lesechos.fr/industrie-services/air-defense/apres-un-premier-semestre-solide-airbus-releve-ses-objectifs-pour-2021-1335527

Basically the airlines want more competition and Airbus is happy to bring it. Somehow, it reminds me the reasons why Airbus launched the A380, they were obsessed with breaking the 747 monopoly at that time.

A350F should be low investment low risk development, unlike A380

Revelation wrote:

He says the "target launch customers" come from the A350 "installed base of combination carriers" i.e. pax + freight operators not integrators such as FX, 5X, Amazon, etc. How do we get 50 launch orders from the A350 "installed base of combination carriers"?

Hmm, lets see
SQ for half dozen
CI for up to two dozen
OZ/KE for up to a dozen
CX for some number
Any of the main 3 Chinese carriers for some number
thats just in the Far East

LH for some number

they don't even need QR

getting 50 orders from pax + freight operators who are installed base combination carriers is not going to be that difficult
they promise @100t @5000nm 20%+ less fuel burn than a 777F, all the above will be lining up

Emirates Skycargo too, EK will begin receiving A350s in two years time.

trex8 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

He says the "target launch customers" come from the A350 "installed base of combination carriers" i.e. pax + freight operators not integrators such as FX, 5X, Amazon, etc. How do we get 50 launch orders from the A350 "installed base of combination carriers"?

Hmm, lets see
SQ for half dozen
CI for up to two dozen
OZ/KE for up to a dozen
CX for some number
Any of the main 3 Chinese carriers for some number
thats just in the Far East

LH for some number

they don't even need QR

getting 50 orders from pax + freight operators who are installed base combination carriers is not going to be that difficult
they promise @100t @5000nm 20%+ less fuel burn than a 777F, all the above will be lining up

See how you’re just calling dozens everywhere like it’s a yard sale. These airlines have balance sheets to repair with no imminent need for freighters. Airbus has better luck with actual cargo operators.

I’m interested to see how Airbus will price these aircraft (if we ever will) they themselves admit the costing of the 350 gives the jet an uncompetitive edge

Opus99 wrote:

See how you’re just calling dozens everywhere like it’s a yard sale. These airlines have balance sheets to repair with no imminent need for freighters. Airbus has better luck with actual cargo operators.

I’m interested to see how Airbus will price these aircraft (if we ever will) they themselves admit the costing of the 350 gives the jet an uncompetitive edge

All the airlines mentioned including EK have a dedicated freighter fleet, and that side of the business has been performing well. They would have no difficulty securing finance for them, if they were trying to secure finance for a new VLA passenger aircraft that would be a different story.

Opus99 wrote:

I’m interested to see how Airbus will price these aircraft (if we ever will) they themselves admit the costing of the 350 gives the jet an uncompetitive edge

I believe it was the A35K specifically that suffered due to its relatively low line rate and specific components compared to the A359. An A35K based freighter may go some way to ameliorate those issues through increased economies of scale on those components.

Fred

Are there rumours or speculations about (a) possible launch customer(s)?

zeke wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

See how you’re just calling dozens everywhere like it’s a yard sale. These airlines have balance sheets to repair with no imminent need for freighters. Airbus has better luck with actual cargo operators.

I’m interested to see how Airbus will price these aircraft (if we ever will) they themselves admit the costing of the 350 gives the jet an uncompetitive edge

All the airlines mentioned including EK have a dedicated freighter fleet, and that side of the business has been performing well. They would have no difficulty securing finance for them, if they were trying to secure finance for a new VLA passenger aircraft that would be a different story.

Because you “can” do something doesn’t make it smart business. The cargo operations have not in most cases compensated for the heavy passenger losses bar Korean. Acquisition of aircraft still requires cash exchange to occur, if you’re bleeding cash, i don’t know that it is smart to buy an aircraft you don’t need.

Cargo operators are different because they have big cash at the moment, and OEMs are desperate so it works for them.

It’s my opinion you don’t have to agree but I don’t see those airlines committing, not because the jet is not good but because I personally don’t think it’s smart business. Unless of course they switch from a passenger variant to a freighter variant as EVA did with the 787 to 777F. Then okay that makes sense because cash outflow is minimal if at all

flipdewaf wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

I’m interested to see how Airbus will price these aircraft (if we ever will) they themselves admit the costing of the 350 gives the jet an uncompetitive edge

I believe it was the A35K specifically that suffered due to its relatively low line rate and specific components compared to the A359. An A35K based freighter may go some way to ameliorate those issues through increased economies of scale on those components.

Fred

Maybe. The Bloomberg article does not specify

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... -price-war

LDRA wrote:

A350F should be low investment low risk development, unlike A380

You are correct. Just like the A330F was a low investment and low risk development.

The question is will it be more successful than the A330F?

Opus99 wrote:

trex8 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

He says the "target launch customers" come from the A350 "installed base of combination carriers" i.e. pax + freight operators not integrators such as FX, 5X, Amazon, etc. How do we get 50 launch orders from the A350 "installed base of combination carriers"?

Hmm, lets see
SQ for half dozen
CI for up to two dozen
OZ/KE for up to a dozen
CX for some number
Any of the main 3 Chinese carriers for some number
thats just in the Far East

LH for some number

they don't even need QR

getting 50 orders from pax + freight operators who are installed base combination carriers is not going to be that difficult
they promise @100t @5000nm 20%+ less fuel burn than a 777F, all the above will be lining up

See how you’re just calling dozens everywhere like it’s a yard sale. These airlines have balance sheets to repair with no imminent need for freighters. Airbus has better luck with actual cargo operators.

I’m interested to see how Airbus will price these aircraft (if we ever will) they themselves admit the costing of the 350 gives the jet an uncompetitive edge

No imminent need of freighters? I guess it depends what imminent is, what happens after the pandemic etc. Quick look at Planespotters shows:

SQ had 7 744Fs till 3 years ago, maybe they wont be back in the freighter business, maybe they will
CI CEO just this year says they will have 18 744Fs and 6 777Fs when the last of the new ordered 777Fs are delivered in 2 years. Oldest 747Fs are 21 years old, newest 14 years. You cannot keep a 26 year old plane on the ROC register anymore (at least pax ones, dunno if the rule applies to cargo, but CI with its checkered safety history is not likely to keep those for 3 decades+. those are all ripe for replacement by end this decade and the 777fs potentally early/mid next decade if kept only a dozen years
OZ has 11 744F/BDSFs, maybe KE will sell them all off, they are all 20-30 years old, they are ripe for replacement if the new KE management wants to keep that number around in the new "KE"
CX has many new 747-8Fs, they still have 6 744Fs which are also relatively new but could be replaced by end of decade, of course CX may be a shadow of its former self by then to for all sorts of reasons, many beyond their control
CA has 3 744Fs ripe this decade for replacement (16-26 years old), their 777Fs are relatively new , oldest 8 years , but by end decade/early next may need replacing and any for expansion
CZ has 2 744F s which will need replacing- 19 years old, 14 777Fs , 6 of which are 10 years old already- see above re CA
CK (MU) has 2 744Fs 14-15 years old, 8 777Fs, 6 of which are 10-11 years old already- see above re CA

I could see VN getting into freighters eventually as well.

All of the above may get out of the freighter business, but given how the world economy is and how much stuff they export from "greater China" and Korea, I wouldn't bet a lot of money on it and a lot more money on someone, be it A or B, supplying them with new freighters in the next decade and half.

Revelation wrote:

As for profitability, you do have to work harder when you have a larger number of smaller orders and A350 itself may still not be out of the woods with regard to profitability, but that may be the only path open to them. Surely selling pax A350s can't be easy under the current circumstances.

Nope, not easy to sell widebody right now... I think extending now the portfolio for "cheap" with a very modern platform make sense given the climate.

They need the A350 to increase its footprint in the worldwide wb fleet. Accessing a range of new customers would definitively help for this.

Also, filling some production slots in the atone wb pax market would make them a bit more valuable. By itself not enough to trigger pax airline purchase, but certainly a good point for Airbus salesman when discussing with pax A350's prospects.

trex8 wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

trex8 wrote:

Hmm, lets see
SQ for half dozen
CI for up to two dozen
OZ/KE for up to a dozen
CX for some number
Any of the main 3 Chinese carriers for some number
thats just in the Far East

LH for some number

they don't even need QR

getting 50 orders from pax + freight operators who are installed base combination carriers is not going to be that difficult
they promise @100t @5000nm 20%+ less fuel burn than a 777F, all the above will be lining up

See how you’re just calling dozens everywhere like it’s a yard sale. These airlines have balance sheets to repair with no imminent need for freighters. Airbus has better luck with actual cargo operators.

I’m interested to see how Airbus will price these aircraft (if we ever will) they themselves admit the costing of the 350 gives the jet an uncompetitive edge

No imminent need of freighters? I guess it depends what imminent is, what happens after the pandemic etc. Quick look at Planespotters shows:

SQ had 7 744Fs till 3 years ago, maybe they wont be back in the freighter business, maybe they will
CI CEO just this year says they will have 18 744Fs and 6 777Fs when the last of the new ordered 777Fs are delivered in 2 years. Oldest 747Fs are 21 years old, newest 14 years. You cannot keep a 26 year old plane on the ROC register anymore (at least pax ones, dunno if the rule applies to cargo, but CI with its checkered safety history is not likely to keep those for 3 decades+. those are all ripe for replacement by end this decade and the 777fs potentally early/mid next decade if kept only a dozen years
OZ has 11 744F/BDSFs, maybe KE will sell them all off, they are all 20-30 years old, they are ripe for replacement if the new KE management wants to keep that number around in the new "KE"
CX has many new 747-8Fs, they still have 6 744Fs which are also relatively new but could be replaced by end of decade, of course CX may be a shadow of its former self by then to for all sorts of reasons, many beyond their control
CA has 3 744Fs ripe this decade for replacement (16-26 years old), their 777Fs are relatively new , oldest 8 years , but by end decade/early next may need replacing and any for expansion
CZ has 2 744F s which will need replacing- 19 years old, 14 777Fs , 6 of which are 10 years old already- see above re CA
CK (MU) has 2 744Fs 14-15 years old, 8 777Fs, 6 of which are 10-11 years old already- see above re CA

I could see VN getting into freighters eventually as well.

All of the above may get out of the freighter business, but given how the world economy is and how much stuff they export from "greater China" and Korea, I wouldn't bet a lot of money on it and a lot more money on someone, be it A or B, supplying them with new freighters in the next decade and half.

So most replacements around end of the decade? Is that so imminent that they should place orders now when they’re bleeding cash? I mean this is just my opinion anyway

They can wait another 2-3 years to call place those orders. I appreciate that some have very ripe 744s but carriers listed there don’t NEED to make those decisions right now.

Especially those with passenger arms. I think the 350 will get the orders it needs but it will come from the dedicated freighter business.

In other news 777F booked 6 orders this month. I wonder how the pricing of this will also change when the 350F fully launches or how it has changed now

Opus99 wrote:

trex8 wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

See how you’re just calling dozens everywhere like it’s a yard sale. These airlines have balance sheets to repair with no imminent need for freighters. Airbus has better luck with actual cargo operators.

I’m interested to see how Airbus will price these aircraft (if we ever will) they themselves admit the costing of the 350 gives the jet an uncompetitive edge

No imminent need of freighters? I guess it depends what imminent is, what happens after the pandemic etc. Quick look at Planespotters shows:

SQ had 7 744Fs till 3 years ago, maybe they wont be back in the freighter business, maybe they will
CI CEO just this year says they will have 18 744Fs and 6 777Fs when the last of the new ordered 777Fs are delivered in 2 years. Oldest 747Fs are 21 years old, newest 14 years. You cannot keep a 26 year old plane on the ROC register anymore (at least pax ones, dunno if the rule applies to cargo, but CI with its checkered safety history is not likely to keep those for 3 decades+. those are all ripe for replacement by end this decade and the 777fs potentally early/mid next decade if kept only a dozen years
OZ has 11 744F/BDSFs, maybe KE will sell them all off, they are all 20-30 years old, they are ripe for replacement if the new KE management wants to keep that number around in the new "KE"
CX has many new 747-8Fs, they still have 6 744Fs which are also relatively new but could be replaced by end of decade, of course CX may be a shadow of its former self by then to for all sorts of reasons, many beyond their control
CA has 3 744Fs ripe this decade for replacement (16-26 years old), their 777Fs are relatively new , oldest 8 years , but by end decade/early next may need replacing and any for expansion
CZ has 2 744F s which will need replacing- 19 years old, 14 777Fs , 6 of which are 10 years old already- see above re CA
CK (MU) has 2 744Fs 14-15 years old, 8 777Fs, 6 of which are 10-11 years old already- see above re CA

I could see VN getting into freighters eventually as well.

All of the above may get out of the freighter business, but given how the world economy is and how much stuff they export from "greater China" and Korea, I wouldn't bet a lot of money on it and a lot more money on someone, be it A or B, supplying them with new freighters in the next decade and half.

So most replacements around end of the decade? Is that so imminent that they should place orders now when they’re bleeding cash? I mean this is just my opinion anyway

They can wait another 2-3 years to call place those orders. I appreciate that some have very ripe 744s but carriers listed there don’t NEED to make those decisions right now.

Especially those with passenger arms. I think the 350 will get the orders it needs but it will come from the dedicated freighter business.

In other news 777F booked 6 orders this month. I wonder how the pricing of this will also change when the 350F fully launches or how it has changed now

Many of those 747s need replacing before end of decade, many could be replaced today. They could wait another 2-3 years sure, A and B could wait another 2-3 years to launch too. I dont see the big dedicated freighter businesses except maybe CV ordering too many A350Fs or 778F for service this decade (too many new 7478Fs or 777Fs recent years) and some of those Asian carriers arent that far behind CV in how much they carry.
Hopefully B gets its act together and the 777X has no more delays or they may miss the boat.
I want to know if a A350F can fit a 10 foot pallet the same way as a 777 or it needs even more sculpturing or it will probably end up with 8 foot high ones

Revelation wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

So most replacements around end of the decade? Is that so imminent that they should place orders now when they’re bleeding cash? I mean this is just my opinion anyway

They can wait another 2-3 years to call place those orders. I appreciate that some have very ripe 744s but carriers listed there don’t NEED to make those decisions right now.

Especially those with passenger arms. I think the 350 will get the orders it needs but it will come from the dedicated freighter business.

In other news 777F booked 6 orders this month. I wonder how the pricing of this will also change when the 350F fully launches or how it has changed now

I think the point is valid, the combination P+F airlines may need/want new freighters soon but most if not all have some pretty weak balance sheets in the near term. Seems like financing is going to play a big role, even more than it already does.

If I'm Airbus I'm not sure waiting 2-3 years is the right approach, they won't want to give the 77XF or 77W conversions more time to exert influence on the market.

Oh I believe AB is right to launch now but I’m just doubtful how many of those airlines listed will place orders. I believe more dedicated freighter carriers will place. So UPS/FedEx

Opus99 wrote:

....
Oh I believe AB is right to launch now but I’m just doubtful how many of those airlines listed will place orders. I believe more dedicated freighter carriers will place. So UPS/FedEx

I also believe Airus is right to launch it now, although in reality the A350-900F was mentioned in the press release announcing the launch of A350 XWB back in 2006.
Below is the link to the press release and then some excerpts.

https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-r ... ahead.html

Conceived from the outset to become a comprehensive airliner Family, the A350 XWB will be available in three basic passenger versions, the A350-800 which can fly 270 passengers in a spacious three-class configuration up to 8,500 nm / 15,750 km, the A350-900 seating 314, and the A350-1000 which is designed for 350, both with ranges of up to 8,300nm / 15,400 km. The three passenger versions have a cruise speed of Mach 0.85. As an ultra long-range aircraft, the A350-900R will fly even further. A freighter version, the A350-900F will complement the passenger models.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... new-planes

UPS, DHL looking at the new freighters.

"UPS Chief Financial Officer Brian Newman said July 27 that while the company’s existing order book is sufficient to meet requirements for the next three years, it is working on a review of longer-term needs. A spokesman for DHL said two days later the company is interested in both the A350F and Boeing’s 777X freighter, while Air France-KLM is looking at how to take advantage of a strong cargo market, potentially with an additional plane."

From the referenced Bloomberg article:

“If Airbus can get 10 A350 freighters a year at the moment, they’d be laughing,” he said. “Assuming they can develop the A350 at an acceptable price, that would be well worth doing.”

Until we see booked orders, most of this is just speculation.

The A350F would work well in fleets already flying the A350 due to the commonality for maintenance and pilot pools. For primarily freighter airlines adding the A350F means a totally new system - pilots, vendors, engine manufacturer's, RR's power by the hour, maintenance, a big amount of change like WN ordering the A220.

It can happen, back around 2005 the A300 freighters seemed to dominate the market, only now the A300's are fading out of service.

JayinKitsap wrote:

RR's power by the hour.

This will not wor for RR, because some freight airlines use the plan around the clock and others only two times each night.

DHL, UPS and Fedex would be very happy to get subsidized engines, and pay only a few hours a day. The perfect short-haul widebody freighter for them.