Airliners.net

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

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/

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/

Avolon has offices all over the place. I wouldn’t read much about their involvement in regards to where the conversions are taking place. Avolon doesn’t care-they are doing this to give A330s they own that will be coming off lease in the next couple of years a new life.

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

given that EFW will ramp up capacity to 30x A330P2F/year by 2025 that makes for quite the impressive conversion program going forward.

best regards
Thomas

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.

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.

Aging is good. D-AJFK wasn´t even 8 years old when it became an A330-300P2F.

I would rather think 767 conversions are done because passenger airlines don´t pay good money to pick up A330s for passenger service at the moment.

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

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.

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/

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.

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.

https://leehamnews.com/2021/09/20/ponti ... ak-market/
https://www.flightglobal.com/flight-int ... 47.article

best regards
Thomas

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/

Additionally, Avolon has quite a number of EOL new A333 which never enter service with HNA Group, basically brand new. Enough feed to cover one year plus of production.

texl1649 wrote:

They are building a 777 P2F line in Abu Dhabi (primarily for Etihad conversions I guess).

It's why they got the Emirates conversion order. Etihad Engineering is doing the touch work in Abu Dhabi, and will convert a lot of Emirates 777s.

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.

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.

I agree that IAI has a lot of engineering work to do, since only EFW gets to have the engineering data from Airbus. Four years is a reasonable time to go through the whole process. It's a long-term play, initiated by a lessor well in advance of its feedstock turning into, well, feedstock. IAI just did this with the 777 and a major lessor. They probably have a lot of engineers on staff saying, "That was fun." Now they have another project to follow-on with. Tribal knowledge still in-house. Smart all around.

The 767 feedstock will come to an end eventually, as will the demand. But at the moment, it's still an excellent mid-sized freighter, and I think we'll see significant orders for it for at least the next 4-5 years. That's why Boeing is growing the number of houses who will do the touch work, as is IAI (with Ethiopian). Although certainly some customers will just go with Boeing ab initio, the way it has gone so far is that major customers have been meeting their own demand with IAI (or a lessor like CAM with reserved slots there) to the max IAI can do in the timeframe the customer needs, and getting the rest ($$$$) from Boeing. That's what Atlas did. That's what DHL is doing. Etc.

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.

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.

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.

That is for sure but when you have the infrastructure and tooling already in place and the actual fuselage for the NEO is the same (at least they are almost identical) it would be a low risk investment in 20 years, but it would increase the value of the 339 for lessors because there is a market even for old aircraft.

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.

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.

Indeed. EFW has been claiming mid-teens annual output for quite a few years and yet the total number of A330F conversions is what? 20-ish total for the program? Anyone have a list of conversions so far?

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.

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.

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...

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...

Ever worked with marketing? Thats what happens if no one checks the statements after they went through the marketing department.

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.

Are you sure? Seems like just imprecise enough to imply world's first A333P2F but not straight forward enough to be an outright lie. This might have been checked and improved many times...

They're clearly not making history so it's a lie.

Will the nose gear get bumped up or not ?

Aesma wrote:

They're clearly not making history so it's a lie.

Will the nose gear get bumped up or not ?

I think that just as with the EFW conversion, the nose gear will remain unchanged.

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.

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.

The most important point in having conversion potential is that the buyer of the aircraft has an additional tool to get value out of the aircraft.

If a lessor or airline buys an aircraft they buy it with a specific time of usage where at the end the aircraft only has scrap value left. For most aircraft this is somewhat up to 30 years, depending on other factors (actual operating costs compared to new technologies) it could also be only 20 years.

So the buyer has to amortize the acquiring cost over a time of 20-30 years + make a profit. Lets make a simple calculation (buying the aircraft with cash).

The neo costs 101m to buy and lives 20 years where it has a scrap value left of 1mio. So the buyer has to make 5m per year in leasing fees to cover the costs. With an EBIT of 20% the goal is to lease the aircraft out for 6m a year, or 500'000 per month.

If on the other hand there is a conversion program available and after 20years the residual value of the neo is 21m because it can be converted and sold for that price, the actual leasing rate of the aircraft drops to 400'000 per month.

This makes the aircraft so much more interesting to buy than without the conversion program. Thats why I think this conversion is such a big deal, especially for the future of the NEO.

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.

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.

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. So even non time sensitive items can not be transported within an economical time frame because the targeted sales time (so the time when the items should be on the shelf) can not be guaranteed because there is no capacity. On top of that I have heard from clients that their supply chain is running dry. The ordered parts are produced and ready to be shipped but there are no means of transporting the parts because there are no containers available at the right place. The more you look towards SME the bigger the problem because bulk buying of capacity is not possible.

So if the parts and items are eligible to be shipped by air freight there is a tendency at the moment to shift supply chains towards air freight. If this will be a permanent trend? I don't know and many people I know also cant say for sure.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Another issue is that when the Covid-19 pandemic hit a lot of shipping was stopped due to low demand. This resulted in a number of cargo ships and empty containers being scrapped. The same thing happened with cruise ships.

Full return to pre-Covid levels for international ocean shipping will also require the construction of replacement ships and containers for the ones that were scrapped. That may take 2-3 years.

The surge ordering and shipping that has created the issue of fully loaded ship bottleneck awaiting unloading will likely be resolved within 6-9 months.

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.

It has a lower fuel burn. So except for really short hops, the reduced amount of fuel allows for more payload.

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.

I think the CEO P2F will never compete against the NEO P2F. NEOs will earliest in 20 years be converted to P2Fs but the existing infrastructure for 330-family P2Fs makes the NEO a more attractive passenger airframe.

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.

Why would ATSG get in on the IAI A330 conversions soon? It’s got earlier EFW conversions slots locked up already.

seahawk wrote:

It has a lower fuel burn. So except for really short hops, the reduced amount of fuel allows for more payload.

Again, no.

I can't decide if you don't understand what I wrote or how airplanes work or if you're just trolling at this stage...

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.

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:

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.

Note that is 242t CEO only. P2F of less capable frames (which is obviously basically all if not all current A330 conversions) will not be able to fly as far with max payload. 242t A333s have only been built since 2014/2015. This whole discussions also hinges on operators frequently hitting max weight before max volume.

But longer flights will always be the preferred domain for the expensive new build A350F/77XF/whatever is available in 20 years that the cargo airline ordered and not P2Fs.

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.

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.

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.

Revelation wrote:

2025 suggests there's a bunch of work to be performed before they can deliver.

Although Avolon is the first customer signed up, and the quoted timescale is Avolon's, the press release does not unambiguously exclude an earlier delivery to another customer signing later.

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

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.

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

The EFW P2F's cargo door is all the way fwd and has a special loading procedure to prevent tipping as it does not have provisions to tie up the nose gear nor has a tail stand. Some pallets have to be held in the forward area while the back of the main deck is loaded.

I'm guessing IAI will move the door aft which, like on other forward-loaded freighters, will allow to load 2 pallets forward of it to speed up the loading/unloading procedure. I suppose EFW didn't do it this way as they wanted to keep the conversion the same for both the -300 and -200 and essentially copy/pasted the Airbus factory cargo door, but if IAI only convert -300 and design the door and surrounding structure themselves, they might as well put the door in the most convenient location.

As for the extra pallet, I'm not sure how they will achieve that. Maybe they'll push the bulkhead/9G net forward a bit and push the double row a bit further aft into the cabin to allow for one more.

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.

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!)

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!)

Payload is by definition the (mostly) revenue weight (whether that be cargo, passengers, or their bags). MTOW is the maximum weight the plane can take off with, and is made up of OEW+Fuel Weight+Payload. There is a maximum weight of payload each aircraft can take (MZFW=OEW+max payload). At MZFW very few aircraft have enough fuel weight (MTOW-MZFW) left over to completely fill the fuel tanks. So at longer ranges airlines will take less payload and use that available weight for more fuel.

Passenger airlines especially are rarely at MZFW when every seat is full.

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.

I agree, but the question is not if airlines want a A330NEOP2F or a A330CEOP2F, the question is if the A330NEO will similarly attractive, once it reaches 12+ years, for cargo conversion and I think the answer is "yes". The lower fuel burn comes on top.