Revelation wrote:

Then it may be a while before we see the next new freighter model, because Boeing is happy to sell FX new 77F at good prices and FX is happy to buy them.

Yet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FedEx_Express#Fleet suggests there are 50 or so MD-11s that will need to be replaced

Those -11s aren't going anywhere for at least 15 years. Right now, FDX has something like 60 -11s either active or rejoining the fleet and they are in the fleet plan indefinitely.

If FDX buys 350s, they are buying them for growth and frankly I think FDX has 50 350s of growth in pipeline over the next 10 years. The MD-11, like the A300 is in the fleet precisely because they can't afford to operate their current volume, to their current ramps, without them.

I have a question for you folks.

In order to avoid being accused of bias, I will ask the question twice in two different manners.


Do you think Airbus has a strategic advantage to launch the A350F before Boeing launches 777-8F?
Do you think Boeing has a strategic advantage to launch the 777-8F before Airbus launches A350F?

Which one will shoot first and what is the rationale of your response?

Thank you very much.

VV wrote:

I have a question for you folks.

In order to avoid being accused of bias, I will ask the question twice in two different manners.


Do you think Airbus has a strategic advantage to launch the A350F before Boeing launches 777-8F?
Do you think Boeing has a strategic advantage to launch the 777-8F before Airbus launches A350F?

Which one will shoot first and what is the rationale of your response?

Thank you very much.

In my opinion, both aircraft launching are a function of finding a launch customer willing to commit to or about 50 aircraft, plus options. As I mentioned earlier, the manufacturer who gets that order will then collect a variety of 3-5 aircraft orders from other smaller operators.

There are very few, perhaps two or three operators on the planet that fit that bill. All three are pretty data driven organizations that will have different considerations for what represents the best cost/benefit solution.

VV wrote:

...In order to avoid being accused of bias, I will ask the question twice in two different manners.

Do you think Airbus has a strategic advantage to launch the A350F before Boeing launches 777-8F?
Do you think Boeing has a strategic advantage to launch the 777-8F before Airbus launches A350F?

...Thank you very much.

that's a great way to frame it. Lots of critical thinkers on this board, but many suffer-from-a-dearth-of/refrain-from-acquiring germane data.

What utility does the market want? ..remember to add the dimension of time..
Can supply/airframers influence demand purchasing through launch timing?
Is Boeing in a position to (near-term) launch a viable VLA product?
The 778F was designed when the ERSF was considered improbable/unrealistic and at a time when Airbus's freighter aspirations were A33* focused. Why would the board or Boeing obdurately expect the market to accept this utility ..tick<evolution>tock..?

Consider this: From a demand perspective and respect for engineering constraints, the currents in VLA freighter manufacturing will drive Boeing back to the drawing board with the result of a b779f with an additional/center MLG. ..2030s..

Revelation wrote:

FlapOperator wrote:

I think the 350F's future will be determined by Fedex. They are the single user who would legitimately make the 50 firm/50 options type initial order that would make the program a go. I doubt UPS under its current management, or any of the other US freight haulers want to tie into a new build freighter program of that scale.

Then it may be a while before we see the next new freighter model, because Boeing is happy to sell FX new 77F at good prices and FX is happy to buy them.

Yet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FedEx_Express#Fleet suggests there are 50 or so MD-11s that will need to be replaced.

It certainly feels like a good time for Team A to be aggressive.

Team B keeps stepping all over its own dingus, the freighter market is cracking, and the A350 is an excellent product with room for growth.

Jon Ostrower hinted at a package of A350 improvements yet to be announced for A350F.

Things could line up in such a way that A350F becomes ready for service just about the time FX wants to begin replacing MD11 in earnest.

Who knows how things will turn out, but it'd be nice to see someone announce a new wide body freighter, be it Team A or Team B or both.

I think the price of oil will influence FX too - right now they are quite happy to take new B767Fs and B777Fs because the price of oil is at a manageable level. However, there is always a potential of oil prices to skyrocket in this volatile world.

It would be interesting to see if Airbus can gather sufficient customer orders, even if FX does not want the A350F right now....

zeke wrote:

FlapOperator wrote:

Personally, I think Fedex would be well advised to do so, as being married to one vendor is a dangerous move, regardless of the performance the 777/767 are apparently providing.

Something will have to give, all current production freighters do not meet the new noise requirements that are due to come in some years away, eventually there will be a no choice. Additionally the engines for the KC-46 are only guaranteed to be in production for a few more years, I think I read 2027 is the planned end of line.

FedEx uses GE engines on their 767s whereas the KC46 uses Pratt. I’m not connecting how the KC46 fits in to the future of the FedEx fleet and whether they are interested in the A350

G'day,

In an article today behind paywall Leeham states the new A350 freighter is likely not based on the A350-900. So I take it that it will be based on the A350-1000 using its wing, engines, gear, weights etc., while not necessarily being the same length.

Leeham typically has a good feeling as to what is happening in the market, they are much closer to all these bush telegraphs than we Anetters are

https://leehamnews.com/2021/07/15/how-good-is-an-airbus-a350-freighter/#more-37071

Cheers

Peter

flee wrote:

Revelation wrote:

FlapOperator wrote:

I think the 350F's future will be determined by Fedex. They are the single user who would legitimately make the 50 firm/50 options type initial order that would make the program a go. I doubt UPS under its current management, or any of the other US freight haulers want to tie into a new build freighter program of that scale.

Then it may be a while before we see the next new freighter model, because Boeing is happy to sell FX new 77F at good prices and FX is happy to buy them.

Yet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FedEx_Express#Fleet suggests there are 50 or so MD-11s that will need to be replaced.

It certainly feels like a good time for Team A to be aggressive.

Team B keeps stepping all over its own dingus, the freighter market is cracking, and the A350 is an excellent product with room for growth.

Jon Ostrower hinted at a package of A350 improvements yet to be announced for A350F.

Things could line up in such a way that A350F becomes ready for service just about the time FX wants to begin replacing MD11 in earnest.

Who knows how things will turn out, but it'd be nice to see someone announce a new wide body freighter, be it Team A or Team B or both.

I think the price of oil will influence FX too - right now they are quite happy to take new B767Fs and B777Fs because the price of oil is at a manageable level. However, there is always a potential of oil prices to skyrocket in this volatile world.

It would be interesting to see if Airbus can gather sufficient customer orders, even if FX does not want the A350F right now....

Oil is going to have to really sky rocket to unseat the 77F, whose capex certainly will be lower than A350F. There will be other merits FX buys or doesn’t buy it on. Oil not being a top one in the near term.

767s are a league of their own for the foreseeable future with not close replacement.

airzona11 wrote:

Oil is going to have to really sky rocket to unseat the 77F, whose capex certainly will be lower than A350F. There will be other merits FX buys or doesn’t buy it on. Oil not being a top one in the near term.

767s are a league of their own for the foreseeable future with not close replacement.

You are probably right, it will be on other merits, like aircraft availability. The last 777F and 767F will leave the final assembly line in 2027. This has been known for a long time, as the engines on these aircraft are outdated.

As the foreseeable future in this case is quite foreseeable, it is an excellent time for Airbus to offer an efficient A350F. The competition might only be an even higher capex 77XF.

Airbus will likely be willing to offer some nice discounts to a launch customer to get some momentum on this program.

reidar76 wrote:

You are probably right, it will be on other merits, like aircraft availability. The last 777F and 767F will leave the final assembly line in 2027. This has been known for a long time, as the engines on these aircraft are outdated.

As the foreseeable future in this case is quite foreseeable, it is an excellent time for Airbus to offer an efficient A350F. The competition might only be an even higher capex 77XF.

I believe that you are incorrect on the 767F. Boeing is all set to roll out a 764F with more modern engines that meets the 2027 emissions requirements. I am sure that both FedEx and UPS have the base cost information from Boeing and its only a question of when either or both of those companies will pull the trigger on the 764F...

As such; I believe that we will keep seeing 767F's produced for at least another decade or two.

I'm not sure what will happen with the 77XF. It seems up in the air. 777P2F's will certainly fill much of that size market.

Have a great day,

2175301 wrote:

I'm not sure what will happen with the 77XF. It seems up in the air. 777P2F's will certainly fill much of that size market.

The freighter market is now very interesting - there is plenty of feedstock for P2Fs. Lots of modern (less than 15 years old) narrow and widebody aircraft are coming off lease. It seems the limiting factor is how fast these can be converted. As such, I am not so sure if there will be a huge market for new build freighters.

reidar76 wrote:

airzona11 wrote:

Oil is going to have to really sky rocket to unseat the 77F, whose capex certainly will be lower than A350F. There will be other merits FX buys or doesn’t buy it on. Oil not being a top one in the near term.

767s are a league of their own for the foreseeable future with not close replacement.

You are probably right, it will be on other merits, like aircraft availability. The last 777F and 767F will leave the final assembly line in 2027. This has been known for a long time, as the engines on these aircraft are outdated.

As the foreseeable future in this case is quite foreseeable, it is an excellent time for Airbus to offer an efficient A350F. The competition might only be an even higher capex 77XF.

Can't help but think how great the plane will look!

airzona11 wrote:

Can't help but think how great the plane will look!

Indeed, but the key question is the same one as was asked four months and sixteen pages ago: who will pay the required amount to get their livery on the first one?

Revelation wrote:

airzona11 wrote:

Can't help but think how great the plane will look!

Indeed, but the key question is the same one as was asked four months and sixteen pages ago: who will pay the required amount to get their livery on the first one?

Great question and personally, I don't think it is a FX or 5X. Maybe a QR but they are going 77F and can't see that much growth.

airzona11 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

airzona11 wrote:

Can't help but think how great the plane will look!

Indeed, but the key question is the same one as was asked four months and sixteen pages ago: who will pay the required amount to get their livery on the first one?

Great question and personally, I don't think it is a FX or 5X. Maybe a QR but they are going 77F and can't see that much growth.

All the new built freighters currently in production, ie the 777F and the 767F, will not be available anymore by 2027 as it has been mentionned here many times. It is safe to assume that there will always be a market for new built freighters, so we can be confident that there will be airlines willing to put their livery on a next-gen freighter and it doesn't really matter which airline will be first to do so. Most probably, it will be the airline(s) that has(have) a need to introduce new built freighters around 2027-2028. To me the question is rather which next-gen freighter will gather enough commitments first to allow its commercial launch: the A350F or the 77XF? Considering that they could both arrive on the market in a similar timeframe, it's mainly their respective adequacy to the market that will be the decisive factor.

Personally, I don't know what the market will need in terms of new built freighters in 2027 and I don't know what the A350F and 77XF will be capable of, so I really have a hard time guessing which one will be the most favored by the market.

This being said, I'm really curious if the market will demand a new built equivalent to the 748F on top of a next-gen equivalent of the 77F. From my own avgeek perspective, this is my most pressing question. I care less about what will happen in the low-density class (such as a potential A359-based A350F) because this is not where we're going to see the heaviest airframes. The high density market will possibly challenge the structural potential of the A350 and/or the 77X and this is exciting.

tomcat wrote:

airzona11 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Indeed, but the key question is the same one as was asked four months and sixteen pages ago: who will pay the required amount to get their livery on the first one?

Great question and personally, I don't think it is a FX or 5X. Maybe a QR but they are going 77F and can't see that much growth.

All the new built freighters currently in production, ie the 777F and the 767F, will not be available anymore by 2027 as it has been mentionned here many times.

It is safe to assume that there will always be a market for new built freighters, so we can be confident that there will be airlines willing to put their livery on a next-gen freighter and it doesn't really matter which airline will be first to do so. Most probably, it will be the airline(s) that has(have) a need to introduce new built freighters around 2027-2028. To me the question is rather which next-gen freighter will gather enough commitments first to allow its commercial launch: the A350F or the 77XF? Considering that they could both arrive on the market in a similar timeframe, it's mainly their respective adequacy to the market that will be the decisive factor.

Personally, I don't know what the market will need in terms of new built freighters in 2027 and I don't know what the A350F and 77XF will be capable of, so I really have a hard time guessing which one will be the most favored by the market.

This being said, I'm really curious if the market will demand a new built equivalent to the 748F on top of a next-gen equivalent of the 77F. From my own avgeek perspective, this is my most pressing question. I care less about what will happen in the low-density class (such as a potential A359-based A350F) because this is not where we're going to see the heaviest airframes. The high density market will possibly challenge the structural potential of the A350 and/or the 77X and this is exciting.

From what I have read that is off a bit, the current freighters can no longer be sold starting in 2028 so they will be available through 2027. As someone used to working to development schedules, I'll suggest that a year matters, lol!

I agree with the main thrust of your post, though. It's hard to know what the market will want in 2028, especially the high density market. The biggest buyers in that space seem to have largely already purchased 748F and 777F in large numbers and typically those have long life cycles. One big opportunity seems to be MD-11 replacement, but we're being told those should last into the 2030s.

I understand why Airbus wants to disrupt Boeing's freighter dominance and why they think they can build a plane that can do so, but I don't understand who is going to buy enough of them to generate a positive return on investment. That's been the main question for this entire thread.

The high density market is fascinating to consider moving forward, and a certified swing tail 77x would be fun to see, yet I doubt we see it, if at all, prior to 2040 on a ramp. No one could have likely foreseen the 767 cargo order surge over the past 10 years 20 years ago, so we'll just have to wait and hope the surprises are similarly fun/entertaining.

Thru this thread and the reporting linked herein, I'm skeptical an A350F is launched in the next few years. There's just not a big market/customer for it right now.

Al Baker says Quatar is ready to order by Q3 if there is a launch. He'd also be happy with an A350F if the paint got fixed (...). Does a non-certified plane (read 777XF) have a chance on such a time frame?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-20/qatar-air-ready-to-buy-boeing-airbus-freighters-urges-launch

xl0hr wrote:

Al Baker says Quatar is ready to order by Q3 if there is a launch. He'd also be happy with an A350F if the paint got fixed (...). Does a non-certified plane (read 777XF) have a chance on such a time frame?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-20/qatar-air-ready-to-buy-boeing-airbus-freighters-urges-launch

I think you can answer that question for yourself. Do people only buy certified planes?

What is the time frame? 2025? 2026.

A350F Airbus is saying 26 from what I’ve read to give themselves enough time.

Heavierthanair wrote:

G'day,

In an article today behind paywall Leeham states the new A350 freighter is likely not based on the A350-900. So I take it that it will be based on the A350-1000 using its wing, engines, gear, weights etc., while not necessarily being the same length.

Leeham typically has a good feeling as to what is happening in the market, they are much closer to all these bush telegraphs than we Anetters are

https://leehamnews.com/2021/07/15/how-good-is-an-airbus-a350-freighter/#more-37071

Cheers

Peter

Does anyone have the OEW weight, Max Zero Fuel and MTOW from this article?

xl0hr wrote:

Al Baker says Quatar is ready to order by Q3 if there is a launch. He'd also be happy with an A350F if the paint got fixed (...). Does a non-certified plane (read 777XF) have a chance on such a time frame?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-20/qatar-air-ready-to-buy-boeing-airbus-freighters-urges-launch

If QR's willing to order A350s in the quantities mentioned earlier then we have a done deal, Airbus will launch A350F in Q3 with QR as launch customer, no need to dance around the issue any longer.

It's interesting that he says he there are no 777-not-X-F available till 2023. I guess it all comes down to long lead time items. I guess those conversion lines are going to make a lot of money.

JerseyFlyer wrote:

Airbus apparently needs an order for 50 to launch - all firm?

They don't need to deliver at pace as Fs will be integrated with pax production. They may be happy to produce one F every month or two. That would allow QF to take early ones for gentle expansion and later to replace 777s at 10 or 12 years old.

Apparently there still will be some dancing around since the link suggests he's still considering A350F and 77XF, and is not saying if he'll order just one or both, and not saying anything about initial quantities. Also while AAB did mention earlier needing 50 frames over the lifespan of the next generation of freighters Airbus never said how many orders they needed to launch the program, nor did Boeing. The figure of 50 for A350F launch was tossed out by an analyst based on Airbus making a bespoke -950F yet we do not have a firm statement of Airbus's plans. The statement of Airbus's execs suggest to me they are quite motivated to launch and Boeing's 777X delays suggest to me that they can't be too confident when it comes to planning projects so IMO this would be a great time for Airbus to launch. Let's see if the various players put their money where their mouth is.

Realistically does the A350F has any chance of being even a little successful with planes like B77W freighter conversion, the potential B778 freighter or even the current B77L freighter? Unless an airline is Qatar Airways I think they'd just go for 777-300ERSF or 777-200LRF to fulfill their needs for a large freighter aircraft instead of A350F in exchange of much cheaper prices and a bit higher fuel burn.

Niloko wrote:

Realistically does the A350F has any chance of being even a little successful with planes like B77W freighter conversion, the potential B778 freighter or even the current B77L freighter? Unless an airline is Qatar Airways I think they'd just go for 777-300ERSF or 777-200LRF to fulfill their needs for a large freighter aircraft instead of A350F in exchange of much cheaper prices and a bit higher fuel burn.

B77W freighter conversion = good payload, cheap (its all relative) but lacks range (~3900nm at max payload)
B77F = not produced after 2027 because of environmental regs
B778F = base model not certified yet, no advantage in either payload or range capability

The next gen widebody that replaces the 777 will have worse payload range capability because of baked in better fuel burn assumptions and each extra kg of payload results in more range lost. Now is the best time to launch whilst Boeing are in a pickle with the 77X.

My projections but both the A350F and the B778F at 95t max for 5000nm. The A350F using slightly less fuel.(79t vs 84t) I don't know what advantage the B778F brings over the A350F. If there is to continue to be new build freighters then why not the A350F?

Fred

Niloko wrote:

Realistically does the A350F has any chance of being even a little successful with planes like B77W freighter conversion, the potential B778 freighter or even the current B77L freighter? Unless an airline is Qatar Airways I think they'd just go for 777-300ERSF or 777-200LRF to fulfill their needs for a large freighter aircraft instead of A350F in exchange of much cheaper prices and a bit higher fuel burn.

Short answer, yes. Not every cargo airline goes for used and / or converted aircraft and then at the latest (I think 2027) the market for such aircraft will be dead! Personally, I think if QR and Cargolux (were very interested) are the launch costumers, it will take its course for the A350F

CI could be good for 20+ A350Fs. They have 18 744Fs to replace. The 6 777Fs they are taking delivery of seem "in addition" to the 747 fleet rather than any near term replacements as CEO recently said they will have a fleet of 24 freighters when the last 777 arrives in 2 years. They probably cannot keep any of the 744F beyond 26 years old, new Taiwan CAA rule 2 years ago for passenger aircraft , but can't see CI "bucking" the law on cargo (this is the carrier which said it would never operate planes older than 10 years after the CI 611 crash!!). Oldest 744F probably gone by 2026. Add in QR, maybe CV, maybe SQ and some others either OEM could reach that 50 unit order.

flipdewaf wrote:

Niloko wrote:

Realistically does the A350F has any chance of being even a little successful with planes like B77W freighter conversion, the potential B778 freighter or even the current B77L freighter? Unless an airline is Qatar Airways I think they'd just go for 777-300ERSF or 777-200LRF to fulfill their needs for a large freighter aircraft instead of A350F in exchange of much cheaper prices and a bit higher fuel burn.

B77W freighter conversion = good payload, cheap (its all relative) but lacks range (~3900nm at max payload)
B77F = not produced after 2027 because of environmental regs
B778F = base model not certified yet, no advantage in either payload or range capability

The next gen widebody that replaces the 777 will have worse payload range capability because of baked in better fuel burn assumptions and each extra kg of payload results in more range lost. Now is the best time to launch whilst Boeing are in a pickle with the 77X.

My projections but both the A350F and the B778F at 95t max for 5000nm. The A350F using slightly less fuel.(79t vs 84t) I don't know what advantage the B778F brings over the A350F. If there is to continue to be new build freighters then why not the A350F?

Fred

Hi Fred,

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

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

Just a thought.

morrisond wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Niloko wrote:

Realistically does the A350F has any chance of being even a little successful with planes like B77W freighter conversion, the potential B778 freighter or even the current B77L freighter? Unless an airline is Qatar Airways I think they'd just go for 777-300ERSF or 777-200LRF to fulfill their needs for a large freighter aircraft instead of A350F in exchange of much cheaper prices and a bit higher fuel burn.

B77W freighter conversion = good payload, cheap (its all relative) but lacks range (~3900nm at max payload)
B77F = not produced after 2027 because of environmental regs
B778F = base model not certified yet, no advantage in either payload or range capability

The next gen widebody that replaces the 777 will have worse payload range capability because of baked in better fuel burn assumptions and each extra kg of payload results in more range lost. Now is the best time to launch whilst Boeing are in a pickle with the 77X.

My projections but both the A350F and the B778F at 95t max for 5000nm. The A350F using slightly less fuel.(79t vs 84t) I don't know what advantage the B778F brings over the A350F. If there is to continue to be new build freighters then why not the A350F?

Fred

Hi Fred,

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

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

Just a thought.

Just to clarify, the GE9X can only be fitted to the new 777x wing. It’s further out on the wing for ground clearance due to its larger size. Perhaps GE do a GE90 performance improvement package like RR did with the RB211-524G/H-T. Trent 700 tech on an old engine.

Hey guys,
Is it possible that the Qantas Project Sunrise modifications to the A350 that helped it get chosen over the 777-8 may well be at play behind the scenes with the firming up of the A350F specifications?
It was publicised that 'some modifications' were to be made to the A350-1000 to ensure it would make Sydney-LHR and Sydney-JFK nonstop in both directions in most weather conditions. I don't recall ever seeing a list of what those modifications were. Perhaps they are being used as well as part of the 'F' proposals with the Project Sunrise -1000s and the freighter -900/-950/-1000s or whatever being linked in this way?
Qantas has publicly stated that they will look again at the order once the pandemic has settled down and international travel to and from Australia is reopened, so Airbus still has time to finalise the Sunrise -1000's specifications and maybe make the freighter's specifications on weights/structure/undercarriage etc more 'common' with Sunrise? Or the other way around? I have zero engineering background or knowledge - I am sure that others in this thread would be more informative on these possibilities than me!
Maybe Sunrise A350s could even end up being the passenger version of the so-called '-950F' mid-model rather than the expected longer '-1000' model, like what Boeing did with the 747SP, using the shorter fuselage to gain range!
Just my thoughts,
Take care,
Bunumuring

PS: I just cannot see Boeing NOT launching a 777-8F, except if a heavy duty 787 freighter is developed. To not launch something would undo years of market leadership of freighters when the current 767/777/747-8 cannot be built anymore.
Perhaps with Boeing, we should be closely considering the upcoming new USAF tanker requirements....'KC-Y'....in the Military forum on a.net for further hints as to the direction Boeing may go with it's commercial freighters! Options include offering more KC-46s, a possible new GEnx 767-400ER proposal, a 787 proposal or a 777-based proposal?!?!?
But that is a whole separate thread to this one!

CCA wrote:

morrisond wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

B77W freighter conversion = good payload, cheap (its all relative) but lacks range (~3900nm at max payload)
B77F = not produced after 2027 because of environmental regs
B778F = base model not certified yet, no advantage in either payload or range capability

The next gen widebody that replaces the 777 will have worse payload range capability because of baked in better fuel burn assumptions and each extra kg of payload results in more range lost. Now is the best time to launch whilst Boeing are in a pickle with the 77X.

My projections but both the A350F and the B778F at 95t max for 5000nm. The A350F using slightly less fuel.(79t vs 84t) I don't know what advantage the B778F brings over the A350F. If there is to continue to be new build freighters then why not the A350F?

Fred

Hi Fred,

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

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

Just a thought.

Just to clarify, the GE9X can only be fitted to the new 777x wing. It’s further out on the wing for ground clearance due to its larger size. Perhaps GE do a GE90 performance improvement package like RR did with the RB211-524G/H-T. Trent 700 tech on an old engine.

I don't think it's materially enough larger in size to make a difference. The difference in fan diameter is only 6" and you only need to account for half of that. I'm sure it would require a unique pylon so if there is insufficient ground clearance - they could mount it a little higher on the wing.

The bigger impact may be the weight - by some accounts, it's heavier - some others - maybe not.

oldJoe wrote:

Niloko wrote:

Realistically does the A350F has any chance of being even a little successful with planes like B77W freighter conversion, the potential B778 freighter or even the current B77L freighter? Unless an airline is Qatar Airways I think they'd just go for 777-300ERSF or 777-200LRF to fulfill their needs for a large freighter aircraft instead of A350F in exchange of much cheaper prices and a bit higher fuel burn.

Short answer, yes. Not every cargo airline goes for used and / or converted aircraft and then at the latest (I think 2027) the market for such aircraft will be dead! Personally, I think if QR and Cargolux (were very interested) are the launch costumers, it will take its course for the A350F

To clarify, the emissions requirements starting in 2028 only apply to factory-new aircraft, 77W/L conversions can still be sold after 2027.

Revelation wrote:

oldJoe wrote:

Niloko wrote:

Realistically does the A350F has any chance of being even a little successful with planes like B77W freighter conversion, the potential B778 freighter or even the current B77L freighter? Unless an airline is Qatar Airways I think they'd just go for 777-300ERSF or 777-200LRF to fulfill their needs for a large freighter aircraft instead of A350F in exchange of much cheaper prices and a bit higher fuel burn.

Short answer, yes. Not every cargo airline goes for used and / or converted aircraft and then at the latest (I think 2027) the market for such aircraft will be dead! Personally, I think if QR and Cargolux (were very interested) are the launch costumers, it will take its course for the A350F

To clarify, the emissions requirements starting in 2028 only apply to factory-new aircraft, 77W/L conversions can still be sold after 2027.

That’s true, but will society/politics still accept “dirty greenhouse producing freighters” at the end of the decade? Older freighers will still be used, but the payload might be more taxed because it was transported “dirtier”.

morrisond wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Niloko wrote:

Realistically does the A350F has any chance of being even a little successful with planes like B77W freighter conversion, the potential B778 freighter or even the current B77L freighter? Unless an airline is Qatar Airways I think they'd just go for 777-300ERSF or 777-200LRF to fulfill their needs for a large freighter aircraft instead of A350F in exchange of much cheaper prices and a bit higher fuel burn.

B77W freighter conversion = good payload, cheap (its all relative) but lacks range (~3900nm at max payload)
B77F = not produced after 2027 because of environmental regs
B778F = base model not certified yet, no advantage in either payload or range capability

The next gen widebody that replaces the 777 will have worse payload range capability because of baked in better fuel burn assumptions and each extra kg of payload results in more range lost. Now is the best time to launch whilst Boeing are in a pickle with the 77X.

My projections but both the A350F and the B778F at 95t max for 5000nm. The A350F using slightly less fuel.(79t vs 84t) I don't know what advantage the B778F brings over the A350F. If there is to continue to be new build freighters then why not the A350F?

Fred

Hi Fred,

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

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

Just a thought.

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

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

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

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

flipdewaf wrote:

morrisond wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

B77W freighter conversion = good payload, cheap (its all relative) but lacks range (~3900nm at max payload)
B77F = not produced after 2027 because of environmental regs
B778F = base model not certified yet, no advantage in either payload or range capability

The next gen widebody that replaces the 777 will have worse payload range capability because of baked in better fuel burn assumptions and each extra kg of payload results in more range lost. Now is the best time to launch whilst Boeing are in a pickle with the 77X.

My projections but both the A350F and the B778F at 95t max for 5000nm. The A350F using slightly less fuel.(79t vs 84t) I don't know what advantage the B778F brings over the A350F. If there is to continue to be new build freighters then why not the A350F?

Fred

Hi Fred,

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

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

Just a thought.

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

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

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

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

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

morrisond wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Hi Fred,

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

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

Just a thought.

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

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

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

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

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

I think we had this discussion earlier in the thread. Boeing prioritised volume over payload because of e-commerce growing substantially. Apparently freighters now max out by volume before payload

marcelh wrote:

Revelation wrote:

oldJoe wrote:

Short answer, yes. Not every cargo airline goes for used and / or converted aircraft and then at the latest (I think 2027) the market for such aircraft will be dead! Personally, I think if QR and Cargolux (were very interested) are the launch costumers, it will take its course for the A350F

To clarify, the emissions requirements starting in 2028 only apply to factory-new aircraft, 77W/L conversions can still be sold after 2027.

That’s true, but will society/politics still accept “dirty greenhouse producing freighters” at the end of the decade? Older freighers will still be used, but the payload might be more taxed because it was transported “dirtier”.

Yes; society will accept the use of converted freighters. It would cost society substantially in the pocketbook if they required all new modern aircraft. Talk is cheap... then the vast majority of people forget about their talk when its time to pay.

It will not be very green if cargo airlines are forced to buy new less polluting aircraft and scrap old ones. There must be a balance somewhere. Scrapping something before its economic life is exhausted also causes pollution because its carbon cost is not recovered over its useful life.

Revelation wrote:

To clarify, the emissions requirements starting in 2028 only apply to factory-new aircraft, 77W/L conversions can still be sold after 2027.

That is not consistent with the way restrictions around noise which is the main driving factor here is implemented, it is true registration/airworthiness of new aircraft will be restricted after that date however airport noise quotas and curfews for non compliant aircraft will also occur. That will mean current large freighter aircraft with the exception of the 748F (as it is already complaint) would face night movement curfews and/or quotas.

eg

"e) to reduce aircraft noise at source, subsonic jet aircraft that do not comply with the noise standards stipulated in Chapter 3 of Annex 16 Volume I, Part II to the Convention on International Civil Aviation ("Chapter 3 noise standards") are prohibited from landing or taking off in the HKIA;

f) to strengthen the above measure e), starting from 2014, airlines are not allowed to schedule aircraft which are only marginally compliant with the Chapter 3 noise standards to land and take off in HKIA;

g) to further alleviate the aircraft noise impact on the local communities, commencing from March 2019, airlines are not allowed to schedule aircraft that do not comply with the more stringent noise standards stipulated in Chapter 4 of Annex 16 Volume I, Part II to the Convention on International Civil Aviation or equivalent to land and take off in HKIA between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. on the following day; "

from https://www.cad.gov.hk/english/ac_noise.html

zeke wrote:

Revelation wrote:

To clarify, the emissions requirements starting in 2028 only apply to factory-new aircraft, 77W/L conversions can still be sold after 2027.

That is not consistent with the way restrictions around noise which is the main driving factor here is implemented, it is true registration/airworthiness of new aircraft will be restricted after that date however airport noise quotas and curfews for non compliant aircraft will also occur.

Thank you for sharing your localized perspective.

flee wrote:

It will not be very green if cargo airlines are forced to buy new less polluting aircraft and scrap old ones. There must be a balance somewhere. Scrapping something before its economic life is exhausted also causes pollution because its carbon cost is not recovered over its useful life.

These measures are not new, they were agreed upon back in 2013 from memory, there will be operators who will buy cheap now and then complain that governments are restricting business by implementing the standards.

Revelation wrote:

zeke wrote:

Revelation wrote:

To clarify, the emissions requirements starting in 2028 only apply to factory-new aircraft, 77W/L conversions can still be sold after 2027.

That is not consistent with the way restrictions around noise which is the main driving factor here is implemented, it is true registration/airworthiness of new aircraft will be restricted after that date however airport noise quotas and curfews for non compliant aircraft will also occur.

Thank you for sharing your localized perspective.

About other "localized perspectives", anyone has first hand news about how EU will handle this?
Mainland China?
India?

flee wrote:

It will not be very green if cargo airlines are forced to buy new less polluting aircraft and scrap old ones. There must be a balance somewhere. Scrapping something before its economic life is exhausted also causes pollution because its carbon cost is not recovered over its useful life.

Futile excuses. This is not a small city car. A cargo aircraft consumes its weight in fuel in a few days. The pollution generated recycling that alluminium in a new plane is irrelevant over the years compared to what can be saved with double digit % fuel spares.

Aquila3 wrote:

About other "localized perspectives", anyone has first hand news about how EU will handle this?
Mainland China?
India?

ICAO agrees on standard and recommended practices (SARPS), these are then implemented in each state via regulation, normally these restrictions are published in the AIP for each country. It is the operators responsibility to comply with the reequipments published in the local AIP when operating in that airspace.

As the EU, China, and India are all ICAO states, they would normally implement the ICAO SARPS, some countries/airports will be more restrictive like we already see today with LHR/FRA/SYD.

FlapOperator wrote:

VV wrote:

I have a question for you folks.

In order to avoid being accused of bias, I will ask the question twice in two different manners.


Do you think Airbus has a strategic advantage to launch the A350F before Boeing launches 777-8F?
Do you think Boeing has a strategic advantage to launch the 777-8F before Airbus launches A350F?

Which one will shoot first and what is the rationale of your response?

Thank you very much.

In my opinion, both aircraft launching are a function of finding a launch customer willing to commit to or about 50 aircraft, plus options. As I mentioned earlier, the manufacturer who gets that order will then collect a variety of 3-5 aircraft orders from other smaller operators.

There are very few, perhaps two or three operators on the planet that fit that bill. All three are pretty data driven organizations that will have different considerations for what represents the best cost/benefit solution.

According to a press article, Qatar is willing to be the launch customer of any freighter.
see link below in which Al Baker reportedly said he was willing to launch a freighter aircraft because he needs them.
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-ea ... 021-06-22/

Considering eh A350F is the only new freighter that is seriously discussed, it is possible Airbus could launch it with Qatar as launch customer.

Scanning 777F fleets, it appears to me most 777F fleets are young. Seeing cargo airlines don't mind old airframes, that would hinder sales for either 777XF or A350-950F.. Also the currently grounded fleet stock of affordable, young A330s, A340s, 772ER's, 77W's remains a risk for the business case.

Airbus in the past waited for yrs before launching cargo variants of passenger aircraft. Supporting, investing in P2F programs (e.g. selling P2F mod kits / MRO programs) might be an alternative strategy.

The A350 seems sold out for at least a decade, as the market situation looks now. A Freighter variant of the 250t MTOW A330 NEO might be another low risk option. Airbus sales probably doesn't want to block A350-1000 slots in the second half of this decade for lower margin -F slots..

Maybe for Boeing it's easier to re-engine the 772F with a GE9X variant to meet environmental regulations than go for a dedicated, shortened 777XF version of the challenged 777-9. Even offering a re-engining modification for existing 777F customers making it quieter for night fllghts, more fuel efficient might be interesting for e.g. a Boeing/ GE/ LHT JV. GE would have to come up with an engine that doesn't require a hefty wing modification, just pylons. A smaller fan diameter, comparable to GE90-11x. Not easy/cheap, but neither is a 777-8F..

Aquila3 wrote:

flee wrote:

It will not be very green if cargo airlines are forced to buy new less polluting aircraft and scrap old ones. There must be a balance somewhere. Scrapping something before its economic life is exhausted also causes pollution because its carbon cost is not recovered over its useful life.

Futile excuses. This is not a small city car. A cargo aircraft consumes its weight in fuel in a few days. The pollution generated recycling that alluminium in a new plane is irrelevant over the years compared to what can be saved with double digit % fuel spares.

Oh really. So you would be willing to spend $10000 per syringe of vaccination was transported by planes, since somehow by your logic airlines must buy new cargo planes every couple weeks to "save on those freaking fuel" and they as a business have to recoup the capital investment?

FlapOperator wrote:

VV wrote:

I have a question for you folks.

In order to avoid being accused of bias, I will ask the question twice in two different manners.


Do you think Airbus has a strategic advantage to launch the A350F before Boeing launches 777-8F?
Do you think Boeing has a strategic advantage to launch the 777-8F before Airbus launches A350F?

Which one will shoot first and what is the rationale of your response?

Thank you very much.

In my opinion, both aircraft launching are a function of finding a launch customer willing to commit to or about 50 aircraft, plus options. As I mentioned earlier, the manufacturer who gets that order will then collect a variety of 3-5 aircraft orders from other smaller operators.

There are very few, perhaps two or three operators on the planet that fit that bill. All three are pretty data driven organizations that will have different considerations for what represents the best cost/benefit solution.

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

NZ321 wrote:

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

I guess in 1993, when UPS ordered 60 763Fs