bikerthai wrote:

RalXWB wrote:

Spirit?

Yeah, I know that's a special case. Spirit is the sole supplier to Boeing for the 737 fuselages. Now, they probably have contractual requirements stemming back to the time when Boeing transfered their Wichita facility to Spirit, but you can work to the letter of the contract or the spirit of the contract. That is the difference between cordial and confrontational.

bt

I thought you were talking about the airline Spirit.

astuteman wrote:

morrisond wrote:

The other thing we have to remember is that there will be space for both 350F and 748F.

Boeing sold 126 744F, 107 748F and 284 77F. That is 517 frames. The Cargo market is also projected to grow significantly in the next 20 years.

It's not hard to see 500-600 big freighters selling in that timeframe. Who knows who will sell what - but I would have to guess the "loser" will sell at least 200. Selling 200 as a derivative in this size class is not losing. Boeing made significant money on those previous programs at those volumes.

Airbus is new to the market - so I think it may take time for them to take significant market share - but they will take good share.

Boeing's 2021 Market forecast has the Market size over 80T at 890 new wide body units to 2040 and 1,720 Conversions (it seems like at least half of the conversions will be SA - maybe about 500-600 77W conversions). See this

https://www.boeing.com/commercial/marke ... /downloads

and See page 13

https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeing ... Sept21.pdf

The interesting thing is it seems like they are projecting 500-600 Medium Widebodies as well - 767/330/787 size. Hence why I think they eventually do an 70-80T 787f.

The capital cost of an 787F should be a lot less than A350F/777XF.

I don't have any issue with any of this really, but offer an observation.

I think a 787F will find itself in the same "no-mans-land" as the A330F in terms of being medium payload, but full wingspan for most of the big operators.
Not to say it won't sell, but I don't predict a lot of volume compared to say the 767F or 777F.
Slightly off-topic for the 777XF at QR....., where I do see a lot of growth in the modern environment is in a "A321XLRF" style long range narrowbody - ground which would have been 757F territory if it were still in full production. I think fragmentation is still a "thing"....

Rgds

Yes - that is a big issue - however the market may be big enough that it justifies doing a folding wing. The big operators with ramp space issues seem to have bought enough 767's to tide them over for a while.

I don't see it (787F) in huge volume until later - but I think it's probably a lot cheaper/easier/wiser to do than upgrading the 767.

Efficiency will start to matter at some point for the big operators - they will have to get over the wingspan issue.

However, Fuel at double the price due to Carbon taxes could change the calculus on a folding wing and what the big operators would pay for it.

astuteman wrote:

morrisond wrote:

The other thing we have to remember is that there will be space for both 350F and 748F.

Boeing sold 126 744F, 107 748F and 284 77F. That is 517 frames. The Cargo market is also projected to grow significantly in the next 20 years.

It's not hard to see 500-600 big freighters selling in that timeframe. Who knows who will sell what - but I would have to guess the "loser" will sell at least 200. Selling 200 as a derivative in this size class is not losing. Boeing made significant money on those previous programs at those volumes.

Airbus is new to the market - so I think it may take time for them to take significant market share - but they will take good share.

Boeing's 2021 Market forecast has the Market size over 80T at 890 new wide body units to 2040 and 1,720 Conversions (it seems like at least half of the conversions will be SA - maybe about 500-600 77W conversions). See this

https://www.boeing.com/commercial/marke ... /downloads

and See page 13

https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeing ... Sept21.pdf

The interesting thing is it seems like they are projecting 500-600 Medium Widebodies as well - 767/330/787 size. Hence why I think they eventually do an 70-80T 787f.

The capital cost of an 787F should be a lot less than A350F/777XF.

I don't have any issue with any of this really, but offer an observation.

I think a 787F will find itself in the same "no-mans-land" as the A330F in terms of being medium payload, but full wingspan for most of the big operators.
Not to say it won't sell, but I don't predict a lot of volume compared to say the 767F or 777F.
Slightly off-topic for the 777XF at QR....., where I do see a lot of growth in the modern environment is in a "A321XLRF" style long range narrowbody - ground which would have been 757F territory if it were still in full production. I think fragmentation is still a "thing"....

Rgds

You won’t see a XLRF…. as aux tanks will eat into cargo capacity…. I do not think you are going to see Narrow body freighters flying long distances like you would in the passenger world. Just the nature of how freight is moved from origin to destination and the many consolidation points in between to simplify logistics.

sibibom wrote:

QR and launch customer....... this will be entertaining!

Fast forward five years and AAB refusing to take delivery of QR's first 777XF due to the cargo door being too squeaky during opening/closing.

skipness1E wrote:

What's the business case for CAPEX on replacing a fleet of 26 new build B777Fs today? The oldest is only 12 years old and the youngest under a year old. The need for maindeck freighters today is to some extent a bubble given how much of the wide body passenger fleet is stored due to COVID. Even Emirates was allowing the leases on their B777Fs to lapse with 3/13 already gone.
Mind you, money's no object here I guess?

On the other hand there's always the chance of an Etihad like situation happening, with the emir deciding that covering billions and billions in airline losses isn't actually worth it and putting away the checkbook... After all, the whole dispute with Airbus essentially seems to boil down to Qatar wanting to halt deliveries of new aircraft and get lots of AOG compensation from Airbus.

The government (regulator) seems fine with playing along.

morrisond wrote:

I don't see it (787F) in huge volume until later - but I think it's probably a lot cheaper/easier/wiser to do than upgrading the 767.

The 767F line will stay alive as long as there are orders for the tanker. Once that dries up, Boeing I'll consolidate the line, either with a 787F or a NMA variant.

They will only upgrade the 767 if it help them win the KC-Y contest.

bt

Brian west just confirmed 777X freighter has received board approval and they are now marketing to customers

bikerthai wrote:

talonone wrote:

can one be so "inteligent" to burn the bridge with one of the only 2 constructors market?
Now, U-turn Al will be at the mercy of B.

Depends, if you run your business by pitting your two suppliers to get the lowest cost, then not so much. If you run your business by having a cordial relationship with your one supplier and get reasonable prices where both sides win, then they'll be just fine.

Boeing is familiar with this second relationship.

Example: Southwest, Alaska, Spirit, CFM for the 737.

bt

And then Boeing has to sell planes at a price whereby the airline can sell freight or tickets to passengers/users at a price low enough to persuade user to pay for the ticket or for those pallets of freight. Boeing and the airlines both have a fair amount of information about what they can sell.

Opus99 wrote:

Brian west just confirmed 777X freighter has received board approval and they are now marketing to customers

It's a funny business. I can't help but think $billion dollar decisions are being made under duress and often driven by circumstance, not after calm and deliberate analysis as business school would suggest.

RoyalBrunei757 wrote:

jeffrey0032j wrote:

smartplane wrote:

Eyes wide open Boeing. Make sure all performance guarantees and delivery dates are 100% doable, using Boeing's contract template. Care allowing current passenger and future F orders to be interchangeable, otherwise maybe almost a net zero change to the current X order book.

Hopefully priced well, as nowhere else for QR to shop.

Boeing knows it first hand, in fact much earlier than Airbus. Airbus didn't read the leaves on the customer when said customer has already made a lot of noise on the 787 even before the 350 entered service.

Actually Airbus knew it as well when Qatar Airways made noise about the A340-600 performance and then the A320neo, they converted the whole A320neo order to recent cancelled A321neos. Some of the A320neos have already been built and they did not take delivery of any.

They (QR) seem to have a nasty habit of this.

MIflyer12 wrote:

A carrier with less access to money, a higher weighted-average cost of capital, or which had particularly efficient (in-house or contract) maintenance services might reach a different decision.

Indeed, but once you secure the launch customer you have a base you can build on and attract other business. Hopefully for Boeing, QR will be that launch customer. IMO they'll gladly sacrifice the -8 in order to launch the -F. It's a far more strategic target, IMO.

IMO the true power brokers all along have been FX and UP. Those IMO will tell us a lot about who ends up having a successful product. They too have a while before they "need" new freighters, but who knows exactly when they'll decide to buy.

If Boeing ends up with QR as a launch customer, I think it only helps FX and UP by not having to take the risk of being the launch customer. We all know QF will not put up with flaws in the aircraft they accept, this benefits future 77XF customers.

To put the Boeing/QR relationship in perspective, QR today is the 3rd largest operator of the 777 (2nd if you don't count the parked UA jets), they have taken deliveries of 83 777 from Boeing between November 2007 to June 2021 and have 3 second hand examples on lease. They had multiple 777 top up orders last one being in 2019 and have taken delivery of every single 77W, 77L and 77F they ordered. QR are also of the 777X launch customers with 60 on order making them have the second largest 777 backlog with Boeing.

QR is the 3rd largest cargo airline, right after UPS and FedEx in terms of scheduled CTK and scheduled tonnes carried (source: https://www.iata.org/contentassets/a686 ... diakit.pdf) and the second largest operator of the 777F after FedEx.

QR was one of the launch customers of the 787, IIRC was the 5th airline to take delivery. Even after the battery issues and the groundings they went on to place a top-up order for 30 787-9 in 2016. They accepted deliveries of the first 7 787-9 without seats because of the BFE supplier issue, they didn't blame Boeing or find fault with the jets to not take them, they paid, took delivery and put the jets into service many months later after sourcing the seats.

So its not like QR is not a known quantity for Boeing for both established programs and as a launch customer, and QR continued to place and Boeing continued to accept orders from QR after the periods where the relationship was strained (e.g. 787 groundings).

With regards to QR being a launch customer, yes there were issues at various periods between QR and Airbus with the A350 but QR was the first airline to take delivery of both the A359 and A35K and have taken delivery of 53 A350s so far.

Close to 70 posts on this thread and numerous other postings on previous related threads and we still have no specifications on the Boeing 777XF freighter. I doubt that even Qatar, desperately seeking an alternative to the A350F would buy an aircraft without getting guaranteed specifications. And those who ordered the A350F so far likely are not idiots and are aware that the Boeing offering is unlikely to outperform the A350F, neither in performance (payload/range/fuel consumption) nor availability.

As we - and Boeing - are aware of we do not yet have a firm date on when (and under what conditions) the B777-9 will be certified and enters service, making it difficult to specify any future B777XF and firm deliveries

Seems I have opened a can of worms.

Airinsight has an article on the latest developments, but still no specifications for the B777XF

https://airinsight.com/boeing-takes-3-5-billion-787-charge-and-offers-777x-freighter/

Quote:
777X Freighter now offered to customers
Almost in between lines, Brian West remarked that Boeing is now offering a freighter version of the 777X to customers, but referred to future updates on sales campaigns for more details on the launch timing evaluation. Reuters reported on January 25 that Qatar Airways is close to signing an order for fifty aircraft.
Unquote

Heavierthanair wrote:

Close to 70 posts on this thread and numerous other postings on previous related threads and we still have no specifications on the Boeing 777XF freighter. I doubt that even Qatar, desperately seeking an alternative to the A350F would buy an aircraft without getting guaranteed specifications. And those who ordered the A350F so far likely are not idiots and are aware that the Boeing offering is unlikely to outperform the A350F, neither in performance (payload/range/fuel consumption) nor availability.

As we - and Boeing - are aware of we do not yet have a firm date on when (and under what conditions) the B777-9 will be certified and enters service, making it difficult to specify any future B777XF and firm deliveries

You admit you do not know the specs of the 777F and yet state that it is "unlikely to outperform the A350F in payload/range/fuel consumption.".

Since you do not know the specs how do you arrive at such a conclusion?

I predict a 777-8 conversion but at relatively high unit pricing(no launch discount). QR gets good PR to show they can still bargain - "look, we pressured Boeing to convert 777-8 order", Boeing gets the profit $$$ behind closed door, pun intended

It will be interesting to discover whether
1) Boeing will offer a drop tail door option
2) Boeing will commit engineering resources to the MLG

discussions regarding a b787f should be tempered by the probability and competitive advantages of the b789cf and a359cf (4bogie)
discussions regarding a359.5f specifications should consider the spectrum of 92-109 lift within range constraints. It's estimated to lift/carry 100T at 5000m; nominally minus a b772f. It's advantage is +~10% volume and fuel efficiency. It's, less discussed, disadvantage is that repair and maintenance costs will be higher, or at the very least less predictable.

amdiesen wrote:

It will be interesting to discover whether
1) Boeing will offer a drop tail door option
2) Boeing will commit engineering resources to the MLG

discussions regarding a b787f should be tempered by the probability and competitive advantages of the b789cf and a359cf (4bogie)
discussions regarding a359.5f specifications should consider the spectrum of 92-109 lift within range constraints. It's estimated to lift/carry 100T at 5000m; nominally minus a b772f. It's advantage is +~10% volume and fuel efficiency.

what about the 764F that everyone says is the only possible replacement to the MD-11?

Cardude2 wrote:

amdiesen wrote:

It will be interesting to discover whether
1) Boeing will offer a drop tail door option
2) Boeing will commit engineering resources to the MLG

discussions regarding a b787f should be tempered by the probability and competitive advantages of the b789cf and a359cf (4bogie)
discussions regarding a359.5f specifications should consider the spectrum of 92-109 lift within range constraints. It's estimated to lift/carry 100T at 5000m; nominally minus a b772f. It's advantage is +~10% volume and fuel efficiency.

what about the 764F that everyone says is the only possible replacement to the MD-11?

I'm with you on the attractiveness that a b764f would provide from a utility and engine commonality perspective. Further, we both likely have similar data in 'main memory'.
What appears to be uncommon or less discussed is that the size of the 'market' is getting smaller and Calhoun's personal preference*.
As we both read through the 19 frame b763f top up order from 5X, they can now wait for NMA. It would be interesting to hear your assessment, but the data is leading me to believe that if a b764f is to exist, FX will have to launch order it in 2022. By mid 2023 FX will have to make a commitment to keep the b767 freighter line running.
*Given limited data, does Calhoun want to leave a legacy by executing a successful NMA? Would tapping into both the passenger and freighter markets increase the probability of success? From my view, business challenges are driving his choices. An NMA that exceeds expectations in combination with Muilenburg management chemo is the only path I see to right the Boeing ship. Where is Dr Peter Drucker?

bikerthai wrote:

astuteman wrote:

where I do see a lot of growth in the modern environment is in a "A321XLRF" style long range narrowbody - ground which would have been 757F territory if it were still in full production. I think fragmentation is still a "thing"....

Maybe, but how much of that narrow body freighter fragmentation can be absorbed by the larger cargo hold of the wide body passenger planes. After all, the wide bodies were designed for long distance and to get a narrow body to go those distances you are trading off payload for aux fuel tanks.

bt

Which is why I mentioned earlier, there will not be a XLRF ever built lol.

Exactly - Boeing is projecting 890 new over 80T Widebody freighters by 2040. I think anyone would be crazy to assume the one with the most orders will get much more than 60% - which its about 530 and the other getting 360. That is a lot and makes both programs viable.

Boeing built/will build (as still building 77F) over 500 744F, 748F and 77F. I can see why Airbus is entering the niche. It makes a lot of sense, and 890 wide body frames is not a niche!

Both manufacturers will put the necessary resources into the programs to get their share. Neither will abandon it.

morrisond wrote:

Exactly - Boeing is projecting 890 new over 80T Widebody freighters by 2040. I think anyone would be crazy to assume the one with the most orders will get much more than 60% - which its about 530 and the other getting 360. That is a lot and makes both programs viable.

Boeing built/will build (as still building 77F) over 500 744F, 748F and 77F. I can see why Airbus is entering the niche. It makes a lot of sense, and 890 wide body frames is not a niche!

Both manufacturers will put the necessary resources into the programs to get their share. Neither will abandon it.

Agreed, both will win as the replacement market is so big. The only note is that Boeing will lose its 100% marketshare.

bikerthai wrote:

morrisond wrote:

I don't see it (787F) in huge volume until later - but I think it's probably a lot cheaper/easier/wiser to do than upgrading the 767.

The 767F line will stay alive as long as there are orders for the tanker. Once that dries up, Boeing I'll consolidate the line, either with a 787F or a NMA variant.

They will only upgrade the 767 if it help them win the KC-Y contest.

bt

The big questions are -

a) is the current KC-X able to win the KC-Y, or does a 764F with the GEnX improve their odds on the RFP.
b) If needed for the KC-Y, does the 764F launch prior to the RFP Award or after.
c) If Boeing does not win the KC-Y, does the 767 line shut down by 2028?
d) If Boeing does win the KC-Y, there should also still be a freighter. A line building 15 a year is rather slow.

The KC-Y RFP will be the decision point.

bikerthai wrote:

astuteman wrote:

where I do see a lot of growth in the modern environment is in a "A321XLRF" style long range narrowbody - ground which would have been 757F territory if it were still in full production. I think fragmentation is still a "thing"....

Maybe, but how much of that narrow body freighter fragmentation can be absorbed by the larger cargo hold of the wide body passenger planes. After all, the wide bodies were designed for long distance and to get a narrow body to go those distances you are trading off payload for aux fuel tanks.

bt

In the same proportion as the number of passengers flown over those distances between narrowbodys and widebodys?
Dunno.
The still strong demand for 757F freighters shows that demand is there.
I picked on the XLR as an example not because of its 4,700Nm range, but its potential to lift a big payload (say 24t - 25t) over 2,500Nm - 3,000Nm real sectors
And take them to airports that the widebodys don't fly to.

The argument about the space of the fuel tanks is facile in my view - the cargo would be carried on the main deck, surely?

We'll see, anyway. Who knows? - not to keep diverting the thread.

Rgds

bikerthai wrote:

RalXWB wrote:

Spirit?

Yeah, I know that's a special case. Spirit is the sole supplier to Boeing for the 737 fuselages. Now, they probably have contractual requirements stemming back to the time when Boeing transfered their Wichita facility to Spirit, but you can work to the letter of the contract or the spirit of the contract. That is the difference between cordial and confrontational.

bt

I think that, they think you're referring to Spirit Airlines, not Spirit Aerosystems.

astuteman wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

astuteman wrote:

where I do see a lot of growth in the modern environment is in a "A321XLRF" style long range narrowbody - ground which would have been 757F territory if it were still in full production. I think fragmentation is still a "thing"....

Maybe, but how much of that narrow body freighter fragmentation can be absorbed by the larger cargo hold of the wide body passenger planes. After all, the wide bodies were designed for long distance and to get a narrow body to go those distances you are trading off payload for aux fuel tanks.

bt

In the same proportion as the number of passengers flown over those distances between narrowbodys and widebodys?
Dunno.
The still strong demand for 757F freighters shows that demand is there.
I picked on the XLR as an example not because of its 4,700Nm range, but its potential to lift a big payload (say 24t - 25t) over 2,500Nm - 3,000Nm real sectors
And take them to airports that the widebodys don't fly to.

The argument about the space of the fuel tanks is facile in my view - the cargo would be carried on the main deck, surely?

We'll see, anyway. Who knows? - not to keep diverting the thread.

Rgds

I was wondering about the market for new built NB freighters too, like an A321F based on the XLR and a 737-8F or 9F. I believe the 757F was the purpose built NB freighter, am I correct? Since then we've seen P2F conversions for both A32x and 737's. In another there is a discussion about Icelandair, who seem to be pleased with the 737MAX but still need the 757 and 767 for freight. So I wondered if a 737MAX based freighter be interesting for them. But as you say, perhaps a new separate thread could be started about NB freighters.

Back OT, regarding yet unknown specs for the 777XF, I believe when the A350F was launched its specs were not known for the general public, only when the first customers lined up at the Dubai Airshow we learned more. So I wouldn't be surprised if we learn more about payload, MTOW and length of the 777XF the same time when (if) news about a QR launch order is announced. I'm guessing it would be close to 77W length. Larger than the -8, but not as long as the -9.

Don't think QR will convert current orders actually. I think they'll even keep the 777-8 orders for now. With the 319t MTOW A35K in the works I didn't think QR would need the -8 anymore, but who knows what will happen with QR's A350 order now. So I'm guessing 30 firm for the 777XF and options for 25-30 777X, which could be firmed either as pax or F (just in case the remaining A350s are cancelled). Don't think QR will order the 737MAX, unless there has been a court decision about their case with Airbus.

The thing about narrow-body freighters is that they usually see very low daily utilisation, much less than the 10-15 hours a day needed to justify the expense of purchasing a brand new aircraft.

It is not unusual to see average daily utilisation around 5 to 7 hours, and you simply can’t justify buying new with that level of utilisation.

That’s why converted aircraft is the preferred source.

JayinKitsap wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

morrisond wrote:

I don't see it (787F) in huge volume until later - but I think it's probably a lot cheaper/easier/wiser to do than upgrading the 767.

The 767F line will stay alive as long as there are orders for the tanker. Once that dries up, Boeing I'll consolidate the line, either with a 787F or a NMA variant.

They will only upgrade the 767 if it help them win the KC-Y contest.

bt

The big questions are -

a) is the current KC-X able to win the KC-Y, or does a 764F with the GEnX improve their odds on the RFP.
b) If needed for the KC-Y, does the 764F launch prior to the RFP Award or after.
c) If Boeing does not win the KC-Y, does the 767 line shut down by 2028?
d) If Boeing does win the KC-Y, there should also still be a freighter. A line building 15 a year is rather slow.

The KC-Y RFP will be the decision point.

Another option is they bid the 787 with a folding wing and the KC-Y order is big enough to pay for the engineering cost.

A 265T 788 or 789 could lift a lot of gas and/or carry a lot of cargo/troops up top.

The military is pretty comfortable with folding wing tech - especially if they need the ramp space.

astuteman wrote:

The still strong demand for 757F freighters shows that demand is there.

Not sure, but isn't most of the 757F doing package distribution from carrier hub? The narrow body freighter can do this I guess.

astuteman wrote:

argument about the space of the fuel tanks is facile in my view - the cargo would be carried on the main deck, surely?

Thought about this, its not the volume that concerned me. It's the mass of the fuel displacing the payload capabilities of a narrow body. Maybe if you limit it to box carrier, then it may work. But for general freight like why QR is buying these frames for, I don't think so.

bt

PS. Would a civil version of the C-40B fit the bill of a mid-range freighter? Although it can't carry as much as a 757.

bikerthai wrote:

astuteman wrote:

argument about the space of the fuel tanks is facile in my view - the cargo would be carried on the main deck, surely?

Thought about this, its not the volume that concerned me. It's the mass of the fuel displacing the payload capabilities of a narrow body. Maybe if you limit it to box carrier, then it may work. But for general freight like why QR is buying these frames for, I don't think so.

bt

PS. Would a civil version of the C-40B fit the bill of a mid-range freighter? Although it can't carry as much as a 757.

It was the MTOW that made me think of the XLR, not the range. But off topic, I guess
Rgds

astuteman wrote:

[


The argument about the space of the fuel tanks is facile in my view - the cargo would be carried on the main deck, surely?

Cargo airlines use both the main deck and lower holds- no point in flying dead air if you can use it. Especially parcel carriers who usually hit volume issues long before maxing out on weight.

I’m not sure how much more attractive a XLRF would be versus max MTOW A321LRF with all the ACTs removed though.

astuteman wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

astuteman wrote:

argument about the space of the fuel tanks is facile in my view - the cargo would be carried on the main deck, surely?

Thought about this, its not the volume that concerned me. It's the mass of the fuel displacing the payload capabilities of a narrow body. Maybe if you limit it to box carrier, then it may work. But for general freight like why QR is buying these frames for, I don't think so.

bt

PS. Would a civil version of the C-40B fit the bill of a mid-range freighter? Although it can't carry as much as a 757.

It was the MTOW that made me think of the XLR, not the range. But off topic, I guess
Rgds

Continuing on the off topic, there were rumors of a factory built A321F with the 101t MTOW…

Wait, two types of freight are in play.

1) Long range freight from China.
2) Package freight (Amazon)

We know the 777FX is ideally suited for 1) .

But if we look at 2, as the number of packages goes up, wouldn't a larger frame be better? I mean UPS or FED X, can't really increase frequency with smaller frames. So the growth may mean going from a 767 to a 777 for their between hub distribution.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

Wait, two types of freight are in play.

1) Long range freight from China.
2) Package freight (Amazon)

We know the 777FX is ideally suited for 1) .

But if we look at 2, as the number of packages goes up, wouldn't a larger frame be better? I mean UPS or FED X, can't really increase frequency with smaller frames. So the growth may mean going from a 767 to a 777 for their between hub distribution.

bt

Boeing should restart B747-8F production. Beter than something almost the same as the A350F.

From what I expect. XF is going to be basically 300ER size with a significantly higher payload. Nothing like it on the market. Much larger volume than 350F, more payload, significantly lower fuel burn than the 300ER.

This is just my opinion and what I THINK Boeing will do. I might be very wrong

But from what I think. The 777XF has been designed by QR & FedEx & UPS and they’ve given their final input over the last couple of months and that’s the design Boeing is offering to customers

Will the 777F now be discounted? Like the 300ER? Or does it keep its price because of faster availability

tvh wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

Wait, two types of freight are in play.

1) Long range freight from China.
2) Package freight (Amazon)

We know the 777FX is ideally suited for 1) .

But if we look at 2, as the number of packages goes up, wouldn't a larger frame be better? I mean UPS or FED X, can't really increase frequency with smaller frames. So the growth may mean going from a 767 to a 777 for their between hub distribution.

bt

Boeing should restart B747-8F production. Beter than something almost the same as the A350F.

If the 77XF is about 70M and MTOW does get bumped to 365T, it is conceivable that it could lift over 120T - which would give it a significant density advantage over A350F with similar density to 77F and put it in the same ballpark as what an 744F or 748F could lift.

Opus99 wrote:

Will the 777F now be discounted? Like the 300ER? Or does it keep its price because of faster availability

It will be available until 2028, when Boeing can no longer deliver them to customers for emissions reasons. 2027 is probably targeted 777XF EIS. 5 years should be enough time to develop it.

tvh wrote:

Boeing should restart B747-8F production. Beter than something almost the same as the A350F.

None of these models makes sense unless there's a passenger production line to defray the cost.

In case of the 767F, the tanker is defraying the cost of the F. Ironically it's the F that is making the profit for that line.

bt

This topic has devolved into personal attacks, off topic posts, and histrionics. Feel free to start a new topic when there's an actual announcement. Until then, this thread is locked.