Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
texl1649 wrote:Wow, that seems like a very large order, for a ‘new’ program such as this. They are building a 777 P2F line in Abu Dhabi (primarily for Etihad conversions I guess).
https://leehamnews.com/2021/08/30/ponti ... nversions/
With Avolon HQ’d in Ireland but with offices in Dubai as well, I would have to guess this one as well might involve the ME3. IAI is apparently booked out a full year on their 767 conversions, and EFW sounds like they are going to accelerate A330 P2F as well.
https://www.aviationbusinessnews.com/mr ... ng-airbus/
Flying-Tiger wrote:Warrents its own topic as it is of quite some significance to the freight market. Has been - for documentation purposes - posted in the air cargo topic, too.
Lessor Avolon has signed an agreement with IAI - Israle Aerospace - to convert 30 A330-300 into P2Fs from 2025 onwards.
https://www.iai.co.il/iai-to-convert-a330-300-aircraft-from-passenger-to-freighter-for-avolon
Flying-Tiger wrote:Warrents its own topic as it is of quite some significance to the freight market. Has been - for documentation purposes - posted in the air cargo topic, too.
Lessor Avolon has signed an agreement with IAI - Israle Aerospace - to convert 30 A330-300 into P2Fs from 2025 onwards.
https://www.iai.co.il/iai-to-convert-a330-300-aircraft-from-passenger-to-freighter-for-avolon
Revelation wrote:Flying-Tiger wrote:Warrents its own topic as it is of quite some significance to the freight market. Has been - for documentation purposes - posted in the air cargo topic, too.
Lessor Avolon has signed an agreement with IAI - Israle Aerospace - to convert 30 A330-300 into P2Fs from 2025 onwards.
https://www.iai.co.il/iai-to-convert-a330-300-aircraft-from-passenger-to-freighter-for-avolon
2025 suggests there's a bunch of work to be performed before they can deliver.
To me this is a signal that the 767 feedstock has finally been consumed and it's time to get going on working through all the aging A330s.
tommy1808 wrote:
This program will deliver about as many P2F conversions per year as all WB conversions did on average during the last 10~15 years combined..
best regards
Thomas
Spacepope wrote:tommy1808 wrote:
This program will deliver about as many P2F conversions per year as all WB conversions did on average during the last 10~15 years combined..
best regards
Thomas
Not quite. The program order is 30 conversions between 2025 and 2028, so around 7-8 per year over 4 years.
IAI has conversion centers with varying amounts of lines at TLV (currently 737, 767 and cutting metal on the 77W conversion prototype) and MEX (737 and 767).
Newlines are being set up in the UAE, Ethiopia and South Korea and will open before this A333 conversion goes live, so perhaps some will be done in other facilities than TLV. Or perhaps IAI will farm out a lot of the 767 and 777 work. Many here like to bask on the 767 and its role in the conversion process, but with a huge conversion backlog and Boeing adding more lines in China for the BCF program, it's still a hot item for years to come.
lightsaber wrote:What a way to initiate a large program. IAI instantly has economy of scale. I personally thought the A32x would be next, but you do not say no to this large of an order. Kudos to them. I Agree with others that this is for Avalon to extend the life of A330s coming off lease.
Late edit, I note one more pallet than the Airbus conversion:
https://worldairlinenews.com/2021/10/04 ... or-avolon/
texl1649 wrote:They are building a 777 P2F line in Abu Dhabi (primarily for Etihad conversions I guess).
tommy1808 wrote:EFW alone is ramping up to 30/year and has the order book filled to do so, so that is 37-38/year for a while.That would will half the WB conversion demand Boeing even sees.
Revelation wrote:Flying-Tiger wrote:Warrents its own topic as it is of quite some significance to the freight market. Has been - for documentation purposes - posted in the air cargo topic, too.
Lessor Avolon has signed an agreement with IAI - Israle Aerospace - to convert 30 A330-300 into P2Fs from 2025 onwards.
https://www.iai.co.il/iai-to-convert-a330-300-aircraft-from-passenger-to-freighter-for-avolon
2025 suggests there's a bunch of work to be performed before they can deliver.
To me this is a signal that the 767 feedstock has finally been consumed and it's time to get going on working through all the aging A330s.
FluidFlow wrote:Will this program in the very long term have a positive influence on the A339? As the fuselage is more or less the same but the possible MTOW is even higher, switching from 333 to 339 conversions should be relatively simple. This would increase the long term value of the A339 and could therefore reduce leasing rates in the short term.
Francoflier wrote:FluidFlow wrote:Will this program in the very long term have a positive influence on the A339? As the fuselage is more or less the same but the possible MTOW is even higher, switching from 333 to 339 conversions should be relatively simple. This would increase the long term value of the A339 and could therefore reduce leasing rates in the short term.
The only use for an increased MTOW would be to fly farther. I don't know if there is an appetite for more range among current and potential future A330 P2F operators... Maybe if they want to start flying them across the Pacific to/from NE Asia via ANC, which would be within the capability of a 242T P2F, with some payload restrictions depending on origin. Maybe some deeper transatlantic sectors as well.
In any case, it will be a while before the business case for a NEO P2F makes sense.
wjcandee wrote:tommy1808 wrote:EFW alone is ramping up to 30/year and has the order book filled to do so, so that is 37-38/year for a while.That would will half the WB conversion demand Boeing even sees.
We'll see if EFW ever makes that quantity with any level of reliability. They're a good shop, but so far they haven't performed at the advertised level, as Spacepope has pointed out in the Cargo thread.
PM wrote:From IAI.
" ...and today we are announcing that we will perform the first cargo conversion for the Airbus A330-300 aircraft."
Am I missing something? There have already been P to F conversions of A330-300s.
Spacepope wrote:PM wrote:From IAI.
" ...and today we are announcing that we will perform the first cargo conversion for the Airbus A330-300 aircraft."
Am I missing something? There have already been P to F conversions of A330-300s.
Yes. It's the first conversion of the type... for them.
PM wrote:Spacepope wrote:PM wrote:From IAI.
" ...and today we are announcing that we will perform the first cargo conversion for the Airbus A330-300 aircraft."
Am I missing something? There have already been P to F conversions of A330-300s.
Yes. It's the first conversion of the type... for them.
I guess so but the full quote sort of implies that it's a world first. It's either hubris or it's poorly worded.
"For the second time in recent years, IAI's Aviation Group is making history. Just two years ago we announced that we will be the first in the world to perform a passenger-to-freighter conversion on the B777-300ER, and today we are announcing that we will perform the first cargo conversion for the Airbus A330-300 aircraft."
...making history... ...first in the world... ...first cargo conversion...
FluidFlow wrote:PM wrote:Spacepope wrote:
Yes. It's the first conversion of the type... for them.
I guess so but the full quote sort of implies that it's a world first. It's either hubris or it's poorly worded.
"For the second time in recent years, IAI's Aviation Group is making history. Just two years ago we announced that we will be the first in the world to perform a passenger-to-freighter conversion on the B777-300ER, and today we are announcing that we will perform the first cargo conversion for the Airbus A330-300 aircraft."
...making history... ...first in the world... ...first cargo conversion...
Ever worked with marketing? Thats what happens if no one checks the statements after they went through the marketing department.
Aesma wrote:They're clearly not making history so it's a lie.
Will the nose gear get bumped up or not ?
Francoflier wrote:The NEO's MZFW hasn't increased as much as its OEW has so depending on how much weight they can remove from the frame during conversion, the max payload for the NEO will not be better that the CEO, maybe even slightly worse.
The only benefit to a customer would be the decreased fuel consumption, but I doubt it offsets the much higher acquisition/leasing cost of a hypothetical NEO P2F at the moment. Surely it will one day, when used NEOs end up on the market for cheap. When it does, the conversion will indeed be very straightforward as you say.
seahawk wrote:Francoflier wrote:The NEO's MZFW hasn't increased as much as its OEW has so depending on how much weight they can remove from the frame during conversion, the max payload for the NEO will not be better that the CEO, maybe even slightly worse.
The only benefit to a customer would be the decreased fuel consumption, but I doubt it offsets the much higher acquisition/leasing cost of a hypothetical NEO P2F at the moment. Surely it will one day, when used NEOs end up on the market for cheap. When it does, the conversion will indeed be very straightforward as you say.
On any but the shortest routes, the lower fuel consumption means that you need to load less fuel on the NEO, which means that your actual payload is bigger.
RickNRoll wrote:Smart move. Global logistics are undergoing a global shakeup. Shipping has been pushed to the limit so air can get some extra work plugging up the holes.
wjcandee wrote:RickNRoll wrote:Smart move. Global logistics are undergoing a global shakeup. Shipping has been pushed to the limit so air can get some extra work plugging up the holes.
At $20,000 per transpacific container, up from like $3600 2 years ago (at that point an all-time-high), floating stuff is now expensive, but air is still more-so. But for time-sensitive stuff, the higher the price to float something, the more-viable air is.
Flying-Tiger wrote:Warrents its own topic as it is of quite some significance to the freight market. Has been - for documentation purposes - posted in the air cargo topic, too.
Lessor Avolon has signed an agreement with IAI - Israle Aerospace - to convert 30 A330-300 into P2Fs from 2025 onwards.
https://www.iai.co.il/iai-to-convert-a330-300-aircraft-from-passenger-to-freighter-for-avolon
FluidFlow wrote:wjcandee wrote:RickNRoll wrote:Smart move. Global logistics are undergoing a global shakeup. Shipping has been pushed to the limit so air can get some extra work plugging up the holes.
At $20,000 per transpacific container, up from like $3600 2 years ago (at that point an all-time-high), floating stuff is now expensive, but air is still more-so. But for time-sensitive stuff, the higher the price to float something, the more-viable air is.
At the moment it is not only the price but also the availability of containers and the limited dock capacity.
Polot wrote:FluidFlow wrote:wjcandee wrote:
At $20,000 per transpacific container, up from like $3600 2 years ago (at that point an all-time-high), floating stuff is now expensive, but air is still more-so. But for time-sensitive stuff, the higher the price to float something, the more-viable air is.
At the moment it is not only the price but also the availability of containers and the limited dock capacity.
The two are linked. The price is high because of limited containers and dock capacity.
Things should eventually go back to how they were pre-covid when all the supply chain issues get sorted out. How long that will take is another question though.
seahawk wrote:Francoflier wrote:The NEO's MZFW hasn't increased as much as its OEW has so depending on how much weight they can remove from the frame during conversion, the max payload for the NEO will not be better that the CEO, maybe even slightly worse.
The only benefit to a customer would be the decreased fuel consumption, but I doubt it offsets the much higher acquisition/leasing cost of a hypothetical NEO P2F at the moment. Surely it will one day, when used NEOs end up on the market for cheap. When it does, the conversion will indeed be very straightforward as you say.
On any but the shortest routes, the lower fuel consumption means that you need to load less fuel on the NEO, which means that your actual payload is bigger.
Francoflier wrote:seahawk wrote:Francoflier wrote:The NEO's MZFW hasn't increased as much as its OEW has so depending on how much weight they can remove from the frame during conversion, the max payload for the NEO will not be better that the CEO, maybe even slightly worse.
The only benefit to a customer would be the decreased fuel consumption, but I doubt it offsets the much higher acquisition/leasing cost of a hypothetical NEO P2F at the moment. Surely it will one day, when used NEOs end up on the market for cheap. When it does, the conversion will indeed be very straightforward as you say.
On any but the shortest routes, the lower fuel consumption means that you need to load less fuel on the NEO, which means that your actual payload is bigger.
It depends on what you call 'the shortest routes' since a CEO P2F can fly for about 8 hours with max payload...
Given a hypothetical NEO P2F would likely not have a higher payload than the CEO, the only benefit would be in flying longer sectors or in the reduced fuel burn.
As I said above, I think there's a limited scope for longer sectors for a freighter of this size and the fuel savings will not make up for the increased acquisition cost of a NEO.
ILNFlyer wrote:Flying-Tiger wrote:Warrents its own topic as it is of quite some significance to the freight market. Has been - for documentation purposes - posted in the air cargo topic, too.
Lessor Avolon has signed an agreement with IAI - Israle Aerospace - to convert 30 A330-300 into P2Fs from 2025 onwards.
https://www.iai.co.il/iai-to-convert-a330-300-aircraft-from-passenger-to-freighter-for-avolon
ATSG will be in on this game soon.
seahawk wrote:It has a lower fuel burn. So except for really short hops, the reduced amount of fuel allows for more payload.
seahawk wrote:I was considering asking you the same. Considering the performance data published by Airbus. The NEO is able to carry at least the same payload or more.
Francoflier wrote:Either way, there is no payload impact on anything less than an 8 hours / ~4000NM flight for even the P2F, so unless that's your definition of 'really short hops', that's not much of a limitation for most operators.
Francoflier wrote:seahawk wrote:I was considering asking you the same. Considering the performance data published by Airbus. The NEO is able to carry at least the same payload or more.
No. The ACAP clearly shows that the NEO's max payload is similar to that of the CEO. The NEO's MZFW has increased by about as much as its empty weight has.
Assuming that the conversion would shed about the same amount of weight from the NEO as it does the CEO, the max payload remains the same.
Then simply substract the MZFW from the MTOW and you have the amount of fuel the plane can carry with max payload...
58T in the case of a 233T CEO (about 8 hours + reserves)
67T in the case of a 242T CEO (9+ hours + reserves)
61T in the case of a 242T NEO (I'm going to assume about ~10 hours + reserves)*
70T in the case of a 251T NEO (Assuming again: almost 12 hours + reserves)
*note that the ACAP shows exactly the same range for a 242T CEO or 242T NEO at max payload...
Either way, there is no payload impact on anything less than an 8 hours / ~4000NM flight for even the P2F, so unless that's your definition of 'really short hops', that's not much of a limitation for most operators.
The air freight market is still very much a hub and spoke system and does not suffer from the range-itis that the pax market does. This means that when you go far, you tend to consolidate into larger aircraft, and you do tech stops. At anything longer than 8 hours, you're generally more likely to see 80~100T payload freighters (MD-11, 77F, 747) rather than a 60T one.
For me the case for a long range 330F is tenuous as even the CEO P2F has enough legs to cover most of its use cases.
Francoflier wrote:*note that the ACAP shows exactly the same range for a 242T CEO or 242T NEO at max payload..
Revelation wrote:2025 suggests there's a bunch of work to be performed before they can deliver.
lightsaber wrote:Late edit, I note one more pallet than the Airbus conversion:
https://worldairlinenews.com/2021/10/04 ... or-avolon/
JerseyFlyer wrote:Francoflier wrote:*note that the ACAP shows exactly the same range for a 242T CEO or 242T NEO at max payload..
But is the max payload the same? Less fuel should be required to fly a neo than a ceo the same distance at the same take off weight.
seahawk wrote:Yes, the max payload is similar, that is my point. While the MZFW has gone up, but the NEO also needs less fuel than the CEO, so that the effective payload is the same, or even bigger on routes over ~4250nm.
JerseyFlyer wrote:lightsaber wrote:Late edit, I note one more pallet than the Airbus conversion:
https://worldairlinenews.com/2021/10/04 ... or-avolon/
It seems this is to be achieved by a different siting of the cargo door (or maybe a smaller door?)
" The converted model will increase cargo volume capacity with up to 27 main deck pallet positions, one more than the competition, and will improve the cargo loading capacity due to the unique cargo door placement, and will support and enhance the operations surrounding cargo jet flights.
https://www.iai.co.il/iai-to-convert-a3 ... for-avolon
Francoflier wrote:JerseyFlyer wrote:Francoflier wrote:*note that the ACAP shows exactly the same range for a 242T CEO or 242T NEO at max payload..
But is the max payload the same? Less fuel should be required to fly a neo than a ceo the same distance at the same take off weight.
Yes, it's the same (at least for the pax version). They increased the MZFW to compensate for the increase in empty weight.
At the same max payload an equal 242T take off weight, the NEO will take less fuel than the CEO but fly just as far thanks to its reduced fuel burn.
JerseyFlyer wrote:Francoflier wrote:JerseyFlyer wrote:
But is the max payload the same? Less fuel should be required to fly a neo than a ceo the same distance at the same take off weight.
Yes, it's the same (at least for the pax version). They increased the MZFW to compensate for the increase in empty weight.
At the same max payload an equal 242T take off weight, the NEO will take less fuel than the CEO but fly just as far thanks to its reduced fuel burn.
The max payload will be the same for a ceo or neo of the same MTOW, but a higher proportion of that payload in the neo will be paid cargo, and a lower proportion fuel, because it burns less fuel (I think!)
Francoflier wrote:JerseyFlyer wrote:Francoflier wrote:*note that the ACAP shows exactly the same range for a 242T CEO or 242T NEO at max payload..
But is the max payload the same? Less fuel should be required to fly a neo than a ceo the same distance at the same take off weight.
Yes, it's the same (at least for the pax version). They increased the MZFW to compensate for the increase in empty weight.
At the same max payload an equal 242T take off weight, the NEO will take less fuel than the CEO but fly just as far thanks to its reduced fuel burn.seahawk wrote:Yes, the max payload is similar, that is my point. While the MZFW has gone up, but the NEO also needs less fuel than the CEO, so that the effective payload is the same, or even bigger on routes over ~4250nm.
As I said above, the ZFW has gone up to compensate for the heavier frame. The NEO does not carry more payload than the CEO even with a higher MZFW. Therefore, the only difference is the range at max payload (i.e. max ZFW). The CEO has about 4000NM as you said before it takes a payload hit. Below that, they carry the same.
4000NM is far from a short hop...
Only above that range will the CEO P2F start to see payload restrictions. The NEO can fly farther with the same payload.
Is that range needed for a 60T freighter? Not really.
Does it justify the much higher price of a NEO right now? Not by a long shot.
Not to mention that 242T CEOs will eventually become available for conversion as well, if any conversion customer really needs a range boost.