Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 1425
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Discussion on Potential 777XF Specs

Mon Feb 07, 2022 1:31 pm

morrisond wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
B777LRF wrote:

Let’s get som facts straight. A freighter first and foremost needs high MZFW and high MLW. MTOW is “nice to have”, but only really governs range - not payload.

Let’s have a look at what limits these weights, in a very simplified manner

MTOW: Limited by engine power. Fit larger engines, and up goes to MTOW
MZFW: Limited by wing bending. Strengthen the wing/wingbox interface, reduce the amount of fuel carried in centre tanks, reduce maximum number of airframe cycles to increase
MLW: Limited by landing gear. Fit a stronger gear or reduce maximum number of airframe cycles to increase

What Boeing (and Airbus) needed first and foremost was a MZFW and MLW to carry the required payload. Seems like both had to raise MTOW to reach an acceptable range, and I suspect both will have to employ a small thrust bump to meet the target. Thrust bumps comes at an increased maintenance cost.


While you are of course right with MZFW and MLW, the 77XF (and the A350F for that matter) are catering to high payload high range market. Therefore a high MTOW is needed to bring all the payload as far as possible. So for the case of the 77XF Boeing also needs as much MTOW as possible if they want to sell it as a true 77F/747F replacement. The market for high MLW/short range freighters is relatively limited.

But you raise an interesting concern, if Boeing will increase MTOW above the 351t, will they have to boost thrust? If so, that puts more work on GE to get more out of their engine even though they did not make any money yet with the current 77X engine.

EDIT: Especially with QRs hot climate, the engine has to be durable in dusty conditions and bring a lot of thrust to get all that weight of the ground. I added a gc map with 4000nm, 4500nm and 5000nm out of DOH.

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=5000nm%40DOH%0D%0A4500nm%40DOH%0D%0A4000nm%40DOH&MS=wls&DU=mi

As we can see the US is out of reach and East Asia is also at the limit, depending on the final specs of the XF as well as weather and airspace related constrains.

The good thing is, China, South East Asia and Africa are well within reach at maximum payload.


They already have gone to 110,000 lbs of takeoff thrust on the Ge9X and given that it reached 134,300 lbs in ground testing vs the 127,900 of the Ge90-115, getting more thrust out of it would seem to be relatively easy and an adjustment they maybe could do in software, granted at the cost of higher maintenance.

See this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_GE9X


You know its QR, so of course it is possible but if durability decreases, Boeing will soon be were Airbus is right now. So if they just up the thrust without improving durability in hot/dusty conditions it will be a problem.

Good thing is the 77X was tailored to the ME but up to 6% more MTOW will put a toll on the engine if it needs to use full thrust at least once daily in DOH in summer.
 
User avatar
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 2082
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

Re: Discussion on Potential 777XF Specs

Mon Feb 07, 2022 1:49 pm

bikerthai wrote:
zeke wrote:
I don’t think it’s materials related, I think it rests with the cross section used. A circular cross section is simpler from a design perspective,


It can be material related in two aspects.

With composites you can tailor the ply stack up to optimizes for different types of skin stresses (shear vs tension) along the whole of the barrel. With metal, all you can do is chem mill pockets to reduce the weight.

Because of this tailoring ability, you can better to optimize an oval shape than say a double barrel on a metal frame.


Does Airbus, with its composite fuselage panels, have an opportunity to reduce fuselage strength and weight, by reducing the internal fuselage pressurisation level of the freighter as compared with the pax version?

If so, that may explain the apparently inexplicable OEW differences coming out of the modelling discussions.
 
morrisond
Topic Author
Posts: 3798
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Discussion on Potential 777XF Specs

Mon Feb 07, 2022 3:01 pm

JerseyFlyer wrote:
bikerthai wrote:
zeke wrote:
I don’t think it’s materials related, I think it rests with the cross section used. A circular cross section is simpler from a design perspective,


It can be material related in two aspects.

With composites you can tailor the ply stack up to optimizes for different types of skin stresses (shear vs tension) along the whole of the barrel. With metal, all you can do is chem mill pockets to reduce the weight.

Because of this tailoring ability, you can better to optimize an oval shape than say a double barrel on a metal frame.


Does Airbus, with its composite fuselage panels, have an opportunity to reduce fuselage strength and weight, by reducing the internal fuselage pressurisation level of the freighter as compared with the pax version?

If so, that may explain the apparently inexplicable OEW differences coming out of the modelling discussions.


They are having a big enough issue with paint flaking off the A350 right now which may or not be a result of its flexing, less stiff may not be a great idea.
 
DenverTed
Posts: 943
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Discussion on Potential 777XF Specs

Mon Feb 07, 2022 4:12 pm

My best guess for 7778F OEW, is that the 777F is 144t, plus 14t fuselage stretch, plus 10t wing and engine gain, for 168t.
For the 779 OEW, the 773 is 168t, plus 7t fuselage stretch, plus 10t wing and engine gain, for 185t.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 5903
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Discussion on Potential 777XF Specs

Mon Feb 07, 2022 5:05 pm

texl1649 wrote:
Titanium is expensive but raw materials cost is probably less than 20 percent of the total cost of goods sold for a new widebody.


Titanium also has political ramification as a lot of titanium is sourced from Russia.

JerseyFlyer wrote:
Does Airbus, with its composite fuselage panels, have an opportunity to reduce fuselage strength and weight


The opportunity is there. However, remember that they would have had reduced fuselage weight by eliminating the window belt to start.

morrisond wrote:
They are having a big enough issue with paint flaking off the A350 right now which may or not be a result of its flexing, less stiff may not be a great idea.


Don't think so as the QR video shows other fuselage sections do not have the same paint issue (assuming the other section was not repainted). Note that global fuselage panel or wing stiffness is different than local or micro material interface stiffness.

bt
 
JonesNL
Posts: 767
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:40 pm

Re: Discussion on Potential 777XF Specs

Thu Feb 10, 2022 12:29 pm

https://leehamnews.com/2022/02/10/the-n ... 0f-part-2/

Comparison of Leeham, their performance model shows that the differences in operating economics are tight...
 
morrisond
Topic Author
Posts: 3798
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Discussion on Potential 777XF Specs

Thu Feb 10, 2022 1:39 pm

JonesNL wrote:
https://leehamnews.com/2022/02/10/the-new-boeing-freighter-777-8f-versus-airbus-a350f-part-2/

Comparison of Leeham, their performance model shows that the differences in operating economics are tight...


Can you provide more than that? It is behind a paywall. What is Leeham assuming for OEW and MTOW?
 
JonesNL
Posts: 767
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:40 pm

Re: Discussion on Potential 777XF Specs

Thu Feb 10, 2022 2:02 pm

morrisond wrote:
JonesNL wrote:
https://leehamnews.com/2022/02/10/the-new-boeing-freighter-777-8f-versus-airbus-a350f-part-2/

Comparison of Leeham, their performance model shows that the differences in operating economics are tight...


Can you provide more than that? It is behind a paywall. What is Leeham assuming for OEW and MTOW?


Nope, I don't have access either. I was hoping somebody here would be able to provide some details...
 
User avatar
DL757NYC
Posts: 534
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 6:07 am

Re: Discussion on Potential 777XF Specs

Sat Feb 26, 2022 11:47 am

I think it’s a moot point for either the 777x or the 350F. The 777 cargo conversion program is a game changer. Boeing sold as many 777F because there wasn’t really anything else available. Cargo companies are not going to spend 350 million plus for a new plane when traditionally they have purchased ex airliners for conversion. DC-10,MD-11,747 etc….The 777 had no new conversion program until recently. You are going to see every viable 777 dragged out of storage and converted and with 800 something 777-300ER built there is a feedstock for the next 20 plus years.
 
marcelh
Posts: 2015
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:43 pm

Re: Discussion on Potential 777XF Specs

Sat Feb 26, 2022 12:26 pm

DL757NYC wrote:
I think it’s a moot point for either the 777x or the 350F. The 777 cargo conversion program is a game changer. Boeing sold as many 777F because there wasn’t really anything else available. Cargo companies are not going to spend 350 million plus for a new plane when traditionally they have purchased ex airliners for conversion. DC-10,MD-11,747 etc….The 777 had no new conversion program until recently. You are going to see every viable 777 dragged out of storage and converted and with 800 something 777-300ER built there is a feedstock for the next 20 plus years.

Makes you wonder why Boeing themselves doesn’t offer a 77W converted freighter, but goes for the 77XF instead.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27886
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Discussion on Potential 777XF Specs

Sat Feb 26, 2022 2:49 pm

marcelh wrote:
Makes you wonder why Boeing themselves doesn’t offer a 77W converted freighter, but goes for the 77XF instead.


Because the 777-300ERSDF will likely be a solid package freighter, but also likely not nearly as strong a general cargo freighter as the A350 or 777/777X platforms.

Boeing studied 777-200/777-200ER P2F programs for over a decade, but never pulled the trigger. My expectation is for the same reasons - the 777F was just a better all-around platform even if it was more expensive so customer interest in the P2Fs was not strong enough.
 
B777LRF
Posts: 3077
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:23 am

Re: Discussion on Potential 777XF Specs

Tue Mar 01, 2022 5:18 pm

Airbus has released more information about the A350F (https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/stor ... marter-way)

------------------

On top of the low fuel consumption which already contributes to major savings, the A350F’s unbeatable economics are also built on the three tonnes additional structural payload (for a total of 109 tonnes) compared with the 777F. Moreover, to do the same job as its current competitor, the A350F will weigh around 28 tonnes less at take-off due to its much lighter composite fuselage & centre wing box, while burning around 20% less trip fuel. This also means that operators of Airbus’ new A350F freighter will benefit from lower landing and navigation charges.

As for the proposed 777-8F, while the current estimates suggests that it could offer six percent more volume and seven tonnes more payload than the A350F, this would come with a hefty burden of at least 32 additional metric tonnes (32,000kgs) of take-off weight (Airbus’ initial estimate) – which increases fuel burn, CO2 emissions and airport charges.

A key aspect of the A350F is that this payload can be more evenly distributed along the length of its fuselage floor. This is possible because the A350F’s floor beams are designed with the highest running-loads in the industry, which is available for most of the main-deck pallet positions. By contrast, in the 777F the maximum running-load over most of its cargo floor is some 45% less than the A350F (apart from in the centre section where the floor is stronger in all aircraft).

Image

The A350F’s higher running-load capability over more of the floor will provide superior pallet loading flexibility and C-of-G management. In particular, its operators will be able to utilise the full 6.8 tonnes maximum certified limit for a 96x125 pallet for 20 of the 30 pallet positions, whereas the 777F only offers six pallet positions with a 6.8t pallet capability – with all the rest being limited to a maximum loading of only around four tonnes where the floor loading is more limited.

Mention should also be made of the A350F’s composite main-deck-cargo door (MDCD). With a clear opening measuring 3.72m by 3.16m, it allows loading on board of all new large turbofan engines. Meanwhile, the flexibility of the main-deck cargo-loading system (CLS) inside the aircraft provides for up to six positions for these engines to be directly latched, instead of using straps. The use of latches not only minimises turnaround time, but also frees-up space adjacently for two extra pallets.

Another key requirement when defining the A350F was the capability to fly from Hong Kong to Anchorage – an industry benchmark mission as it is the most often flown cargo route in the world – at full payload. Accordingly, the A350F with 109t max structural payload can carry it over 4,700nm to enable this route, and do so with the lowest possible fuel burn and proportionally reduced CO2 emissions.


------------------

I don’t know from which orifice Leeham pulled their analysis, but it’s simply impossible for an aircraft (777-8F) weighing 32 tons more having “near equal” operating costs.
 
JonesNL
Posts: 767
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:40 pm

Re: Discussion on Potential 777XF Specs

Wed Mar 09, 2022 4:57 am

Not really a vote of confidence from ALC and seems to support the previous comment…

https://airlineweekly.com/2022/03/airbu ... dvar-hazy/

Udvar-Hazy spoke briefly of the freighter market at ISTAT. ALC is looking at Boeing’s new 777-8 freighter but said that the company does not “see a compelling case” yet for the jet, which he said is heavier than the new Airbus A350 freighter.
 
SteinarN
Posts: 243
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2014 1:26 pm

Re: Discussion on Potential 777XF Specs

Wed Mar 09, 2022 1:19 pm

B777LRF wrote:
Airbus has released more information about the A350F (https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/stor ... marter-way)

------------------

On top of the low fuel consumption which already contributes to major savings, the A350F’s unbeatable economics are also built on the three tonnes additional structural payload (for a total of 109 tonnes) compared with the 777F. Moreover, to do the same job as its current competitor, the A350F will weigh around 28 tonnes less at take-off due to its much lighter composite fuselage & centre wing box, while burning around 20% less trip fuel. This also means that operators of Airbus’ new A350F freighter will benefit from lower landing and navigation charges.

As for the proposed 777-8F, while the current estimates suggests that it could offer six percent more volume and seven tonnes more payload than the A350F, this would come with a hefty burden of at least 32 additional metric tonnes (32,000kgs) of take-off weight (Airbus’ initial estimate) – which increases fuel burn, CO2 emissions and airport charges.

A key aspect of the A350F is that this payload can be more evenly distributed along the length of its fuselage floor. This is possible because the A350F’s floor beams are designed with the highest running-loads in the industry, which is available for most of the main-deck pallet positions. By contrast, in the 777F the maximum running-load over most of its cargo floor is some 45% less than the A350F (apart from in the centre section where the floor is stronger in all aircraft).

Image

The A350F’s higher running-load capability over more of the floor will provide superior pallet loading flexibility and C-of-G management. In particular, its operators will be able to utilise the full 6.8 tonnes maximum certified limit for a 96x125 pallet for 20 of the 30 pallet positions, whereas the 777F only offers six pallet positions with a 6.8t pallet capability – with all the rest being limited to a maximum loading of only around four tonnes where the floor loading is more limited.

Mention should also be made of the A350F’s composite main-deck-cargo door (MDCD). With a clear opening measuring 3.72m by 3.16m, it allows loading on board of all new large turbofan engines. Meanwhile, the flexibility of the main-deck cargo-loading system (CLS) inside the aircraft provides for up to six positions for these engines to be directly latched, instead of using straps. The use of latches not only minimises turnaround time, but also frees-up space adjacently for two extra pallets.

Another key requirement when defining the A350F was the capability to fly from Hong Kong to Anchorage – an industry benchmark mission as it is the most often flown cargo route in the world – at full payload. Accordingly, the A350F with 109t max structural payload can carry it over 4,700nm to enable this route, and do so with the lowest possible fuel burn and proportionally reduced CO2 emissions.


------------------

I don’t know from which orifice Leeham pulled their analysis, but it’s simply impossible for an aircraft (777-8F) weighing 32 tons more having “near equal” operating costs.


I think you need to subtract the 7 tonnes additional payload from the 32 tonnes heavier TOW. That results in 25 tonnes more emptyweight and fuel combined. Now, at max payload the range of the 777XF is shorter, so after all maybe less fuel is carried compared to the 350F. So, these numbers suggest +/- 25 tonnes heavier empty weight of the 777XF.
 
iamlucky13
Posts: 1551
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

Re: Discussion on Potential 777XF Specs

Wed Mar 09, 2022 6:42 pm

B777LRF wrote:
I don’t know from which orifice Leeham pulled their analysis, but it’s simply impossible for an aircraft (777-8F) weighing 32 tons more having “near equal” operating costs.


Clearly it is not as simple as comparing takeoff weight and payload. The orders so far are similar in number. If I'm seeing the right figures, it is 29 for the A350F and 39 for the 777-8F, including letters of intent and options in both cases.

Specifically for the 777-8F: Qatar operates the A350 and has orders for the 777-9, so that seems like it could have gone either way. Ethiopian operates the A350, but does not have orders for the 777-9, so their letter of intent for the 777-8F suggests something about what Boeing is promising for that freighter fits their needs well enough to have higher value than fleet commonality. Ethiopian does operate the legacy 777 and 777F, so I suppose there is some level of commonality there, and perhaps there are plans to have both the 777X and A350 in their passenger fleet.

I'm hoping Boeing lands the Fed Ex order, too, but we'll see how that goes.
 
JonesNL
Posts: 767
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:40 pm

Re: Discussion on Potential 777XF Specs

Wed Mar 09, 2022 7:06 pm

iamlucky13 wrote:
B777LRF wrote:
I don’t know from which orifice Leeham pulled their analysis, but it’s simply impossible for an aircraft (777-8F) weighing 32 tons more having “near equal” operating costs.


Clearly it is not as simple as comparing takeoff weight and payload. The orders so far are similar in number. If I'm seeing the right figures, it is 29 for the A350F and 39 for the 777-8F, including letters of intent and options in both cases.

Specifically for the 777-8F: Qatar operates the A350 and has orders for the 777-9, so that seems like it could have gone either way. Ethiopian operates the A350, but does not have orders for the 777-9, so their letter of intent for the 777-8F suggests something about what Boeing is promising for that freighter fits their needs well enough to have higher value than fleet commonality. Ethiopian does operate the legacy 777 and 777F, so I suppose there is some level of commonality there, and perhaps there are plans to have both the 777X and A350 in their passenger fleet.

I'm hoping Boeing lands the Fed Ex order, too, but we'll see how that goes.


Implying that qatar’s order could go both ways is not really in line with the reporting about the dispute between A and Q…
 
texl1649
Posts: 2215
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: Discussion on Potential 777XF Specs

Wed Mar 09, 2022 7:14 pm

JonesNL wrote:
Not really a vote of confidence from ALC and seems to support the previous comment…

https://airlineweekly.com/2022/03/airbu ... dvar-hazy/

Udvar-Hazy spoke briefly of the freighter market at ISTAT. ALC is looking at Boeing’s new 777-8 freighter but said that the company does not “see a compelling case” yet for the jet, which he said is heavier than the new Airbus A350 freighter.


How many 77F’s are leased today? I don’t think ALC owns any, that I can think of off the top of my head. Maybe he…doesn’t see a business case for ALC.
 
User avatar
sassiciai
Posts: 1190
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:26 pm

Re: Discussion on Potential 777XF Specs

Wed Mar 09, 2022 7:17 pm

iamlucky13 wrote:
B777LRF wrote:
I don’t know from which orifice Leeham pulled their analysis, but it’s simply impossible for an aircraft (777-8F) weighing 32 tons more having “near equal” operating costs.




I'm hoping Boeing lands the Fed Ex order, too, but we'll see how that goes.

Why do you have this hope? Is this fanboyism, or something more intelligent?

I for one am amazed that so much discussion is taking place about 2 aircraft with broadly similar performance, where one is 25tons+ heavier than the other before they are loaded. Operate those aircraft for 25 years, I wonder what is the cumulative difference in fuel, navigation, and airport costs - it surely must add up to a significant number of $, never mind the apparent difference (in favour of the A350) of purchase price

Is Ethiopean buying on spec, or on compensation credits?
 
texl1649
Posts: 2215
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: Discussion on Potential 777XF Specs

Wed Mar 09, 2022 7:29 pm

JonesNL wrote:
iamlucky13 wrote:
B777LRF wrote:
I don’t know from which orifice Leeham pulled their analysis, but it’s simply impossible for an aircraft (777-8F) weighing 32 tons more having “near equal” operating costs.


Clearly it is not as simple as comparing takeoff weight and payload. The orders so far are similar in number. If I'm seeing the right figures, it is 29 for the A350F and 39 for the 777-8F, including letters of intent and options in both cases.

Specifically for the 777-8F: Qatar operates the A350 and has orders for the 777-9, so that seems like it could have gone either way. Ethiopian operates the A350, but does not have orders for the 777-9, so their letter of intent for the 777-8F suggests something about what Boeing is promising for that freighter fits their needs well enough to have higher value than fleet commonality. Ethiopian does operate the legacy 777 and 777F, so I suppose there is some level of commonality there, and perhaps there are plans to have both the 777X and A350 in their passenger fleet.

I'm hoping Boeing lands the Fed Ex order, too, but we'll see how that goes.


Implying that qatar’s order could go both ways is not really in line with the reporting about the dispute between A and Q…


The CMA CGM order was certainly not ‘up for grabs’ either. It’s too early in these aircraft order cycles/lifespans to really say one has a big advantage vs. the other. The real question of comparison isn’t A vs. B, it’s GE vs. RR for cargo operators, imho. I don’t have a feel for how that will work out yet either.
 
iamlucky13
Posts: 1551
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

Re: Discussion on Potential 777XF Specs

Wed Mar 09, 2022 8:18 pm

JonesNL wrote:
iamlucky13 wrote:
B777LRF wrote:
I don’t know from which orifice Leeham pulled their analysis, but it’s simply impossible for an aircraft (777-8F) weighing 32 tons more having “near equal” operating costs.


Clearly it is not as simple as comparing takeoff weight and payload. The orders so far are similar in number. If I'm seeing the right figures, it is 29 for the A350F and 39 for the 777-8F, including letters of intent and options in both cases.

Specifically for the 777-8F: Qatar operates the A350 and has orders for the 777-9, so that seems like it could have gone either way. Ethiopian operates the A350, but does not have orders for the 777-9, so their letter of intent for the 777-8F suggests something about what Boeing is promising for that freighter fits their needs well enough to have higher value than fleet commonality. Ethiopian does operate the legacy 777 and 777F, so I suppose there is some level of commonality there, and perhaps there are plans to have both the 777X and A350 in their passenger fleet.

I'm hoping Boeing lands the Fed Ex order, too, but we'll see how that goes.


Implying that qatar’s order could go both ways is not really in line with the reporting about the dispute between A and Q…


If we are going to assume the A350 paint issues are so bad that it made more sense to buy a freighter with significantly higher operating costs, we're still not making the case the A350F is the better plane for Qatar. Even if Airbus cut off talks with Qatar over their response to the paint issues, that wasn't Airbus forcing Qatar's hand. Qatar knew the risks of playing hardball, and they had the opportunity to make amends to avoid being stuck with an uncompetitive aircraft if 777-8F really is a clearly inferior product.

sassiciai wrote:
iamlucky13 wrote:
I'm hoping Boeing lands the Fed Ex order, too, but we'll see how that goes.

Why do you have this hope? Is this fanboyism, or something more intelligent?


I grew up in the area around Boeing's Washington operations and have many family members and friends who have worked for Boeing. My hope for Boeing's success derives mainly from a very normal hometown affinity and concern for my family and friends' success, and partly from a hope to see continued variety in the aircraft we see gracing the skies. I have complete confidence the A350 will be a very successful program regardless of how well the freighter variant sells, but I think the 777X will depend on good sales of the freighter.

To deride such a simple statement of my hope as "fanboyism" and suggest this reflects poorly on my intelligence was unnecessarily insulting. Grow up.
 
ben7x
Posts: 211
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2021 8:58 am

Re: Discussion on Potential 777XF Specs

Wed Mar 09, 2022 8:21 pm

iamlucky13 wrote:
Clearly it is not as simple as comparing takeoff weight and payload. The orders so far are similar in number. If I'm seeing the right figures, it is 29 for the A350F and 39 for the 777-8F, including letters of intent and options in both cases.

Specifically for the 777-8F: Qatar operates the A350 and has orders for the 777-9, so that seems like it could have gone either way. Ethiopian operates the A350, but does not have orders for the 777-9, so their letter of intent for the 777-8F suggests something about what Boeing is promising for that freighter fits their needs well enough to have higher value than fleet commonality. Ethiopian does operate the legacy 777 and 777F, so I suppose there is some level of commonality there, and perhaps there are plans to have both the 777X and A350 in their passenger fleet.

I'm hoping Boeing lands the Fed Ex order, too, but we'll see how that goes.


Qatar had to order 777XF because their couldn’t order A350F.
Ethiopian ordered 777XF because of their compensation credits.
Singapore ordered A350F because they could switch A350 pax and A320neo orders for the freighter.
Air France ordered A350F because they’ll heavily rely on A350 pax frames in the future (don’t know if they will order 777X pax), so an XF wouldn’t make sense.
I wouldn’t really say that these airlines bought A350F or 777XF because of their better performance but more for other reasons.

What is really interesting IMO is the CMA CGM order. They ordered 777F first and then A350F. Wouldn’t it make more sense to also order XF instead of A350F because of commonality etc? But they decided against it. Possible explanation: maybe Air Belgium will operate them (common type rating to A330F they already have). But if CMA CGM operates them by itself, I would see it as a serious hint to who has better performance.

FedEx has a VERY strong relationship with Boeing, so I wouldn’t be surprised if they’ll order the inferior product but get a good price (assuming the XF has worse performance compared to the A350 as some in this thread stated).
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 13512
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Discussion on Potential 777XF Specs

Wed Mar 09, 2022 8:38 pm

ben7x wrote:

What is really interesting IMO is the CMA CGM order. They ordered 777F first and then A350F. Wouldn’t it make more sense to also order XF instead of A350F because of commonality etc? But they decided against it. Possible explanation: maybe Air Belgium will operate them (common type rating to A330F they already have). But if CMA CGM operates them by itself, I would see it as a serious hint to who has better performance.

I suspect CMA CGM’s 777F order is purely because of availability. They are being delivered this spring, after being ordered last fall. I don’t think they have any intention of being a long term 777 operator, and if there was an equivalent Airbus available now they would have ordered that instead.

Long term CMA CGM plans to operate all the A330s themselves. Air Belgium was brought in to quickly get things off the ground as they (CMA CGM) set up their air division.
 
texl1649
Posts: 2215
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: Discussion on Potential 777XF Specs

Thu Mar 10, 2022 12:10 am

Polot wrote:
ben7x wrote:

What is really interesting IMO is the CMA CGM order. They ordered 777F first and then A350F. Wouldn’t it make more sense to also order XF instead of A350F because of commonality etc? But they decided against it. Possible explanation: maybe Air Belgium will operate them (common type rating to A330F they already have). But if CMA CGM operates them by itself, I would see it as a serious hint to who has better performance.

I suspect CMA CGM’s 777F order is purely because of availability. They are being delivered this spring, after being ordered last fall. I don’t think they have any intention of being a long term 777 operator, and if there was an equivalent Airbus available now they would have ordered that instead.

Long term CMA CGM plans to operate all the A330s themselves. Air Belgium was brought in to quickly get things off the ground as they (CMA CGM) set up their air division.


CMA CGM, partially owned/backed by the French government, and a few hundred kilometers from Toulouse, might have had other reasons for said A350F order.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heal ... SKBN22P0RP

Again, it is way, way too early to say the orders in place right now mean much as far as which program will do well over the next decade or two. As with the pax versions, the Boeing for now is benefiting from a current base of operators, and a half generation newer engine, while the Airbus is lighter and carries more gas (but a little less cargo).
 
User avatar
reidar76
Posts: 693
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:16 pm

Re: Discussion on Potential 777XF Specs

Thu Mar 10, 2022 4:11 am

texl1649 wrote:
As with the pax versions, the Boeing for now is benefiting from a current base of operators, and a half generation newer engine, while the Airbus is lighter and carries more gas (but a little less cargo).


The 777X can accually carry more fuel, about 25 % more. The 777X can carry 198,000 liter (52,300 US gallon), compared to 159,000 liter (42,000 US gallon) for the A350.

I have not seen any reports with actual data on engine performance. Do remember that the 777X launched in 2013, some 9 years ago, with an scheduled service entry in 2019. The engine doesn't become newer while waiting for the airframe to be certified. The redesigned A350-1000 with higher weights and a more powerful engine was launched in 2011, with entry into service in 2018. These engines are not that far apart, comparing the timeline.

The A350 fellowFly technology have the possibility to futher reduce fuel consumption for some operators.

If Boeing delivers the 777XF on time (2028?), it might only be a year or so before Airbus might have started with ultrafan tests on the A350.

The long term competition between these freighters is far from certain. It is to early to tell. Single pilot cruise might also become important to reduce costs. Boeing have the benefit of a huge fleet of current generation 777F, so Airbus needs to have a significantly better product in order to get cargo airlines to switch from Boeing to Airbus freighters.
 
Scotron12
Posts: 676
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:13 pm

Re: Discussion on Potential 777XF Specs

Thu Mar 10, 2022 6:14 am

reidar76 wrote:
texl1649 wrote:
As with the pax versions, the Boeing for now is benefiting from a current base of operators, and a half generation newer engine, while the Airbus is lighter and carries more gas (but a little less cargo).


The 777X can accually carry more fuel, about 25 % more. The 777X can carry 198,000 liter (52,300 US gallon), compared to 159,000 liter (42,000 US gallon) for the A350.

I have not seen any reports with actual data on engine performance. Do remember that the 777X launched in 2013, some 9 years ago, with an scheduled service entry in 2019. The engine doesn't become newer while waiting for the airframe to be certified. The redesigned A350-1000 with higher weights and a more powerful engine was launched in 2011, with entry into service in 2018. These engines are not that far apart, comparing the timeline.

The A350 fellowFly technology have the possibility to futher reduce fuel consumption for some operators.

If Boeing delivers the 777XF on time (2028?), it might only be a year or so before Airbus might have started with ultrafan tests on the A350.

The long term competition between these freighters is far from certain. It is to early to tell. Single pilot cruise might also become important to reduce costs. Boeing have the benefit of a huge fleet of current generation 777F, so Airbus needs to have a significantly better product in order to get cargo airlines to switch from Boeing to Airbus freighters.


There's the rub. Airbus aims for an EIS on the A350F of 2025, a full 3yrs before the B777XF. Plus, i can only see the A350F appeal growing especially if oil prices keep rising :banghead:
 
marcelh
Posts: 2015
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:43 pm

Re: Discussion on Potential 777XF Specs

Thu Mar 10, 2022 6:26 am

texl1649 wrote:
Polot wrote:
ben7x wrote:

What is really interesting IMO is the CMA CGM order. They ordered 777F first and then A350F. Wouldn’t it make more sense to also order XF instead of A350F because of commonality etc? But they decided against it. Possible explanation: maybe Air Belgium will operate them (common type rating to A330F they already have). But if CMA CGM operates them by itself, I would see it as a serious hint to who has better performance.

I suspect CMA CGM’s 777F order is purely because of availability. They are being delivered this spring, after being ordered last fall. I don’t think they have any intention of being a long term 777 operator, and if there was an equivalent Airbus available now they would have ordered that instead.

Long term CMA CGM plans to operate all the A330s themselves. Air Belgium was brought in to quickly get things off the ground as they (CMA CGM) set up their air division.


CMA CGM, partially owned/backed by the French government, and a few hundred kilometers from Toulouse, might have had other reasons for said A350F order.


With that same logic, AirFrance would have had dozens of A346 instead of B77W……
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4521
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Discussion on Potential 777XF Specs

Thu Mar 10, 2022 6:31 am

marcelh wrote:
texl1649 wrote:
Polot wrote:
I suspect CMA CGM’s 777F order is purely because of availability. They are being delivered this spring, after being ordered last fall. I don’t think they have any intention of being a long term 777 operator, and if there was an equivalent Airbus available now they would have ordered that instead.

Long term CMA CGM plans to operate all the A330s themselves. Air Belgium was brought in to quickly get things off the ground as they (CMA CGM) set up their air division.


CMA CGM, partially owned/backed by the French government, and a few hundred kilometers from Toulouse, might have had other reasons for said A350F order.


With that same logic, AirFrance would have had dozens of A346 instead of B77W……

And If FX order the 777XF is is because it’s American or because it’s the better aircraft… we shall see….

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
JonesNL
Posts: 767
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:40 pm

Re: Discussion on Potential 777XF Specs

Thu Mar 10, 2022 7:03 am

reidar76 wrote:
texl1649 wrote:
As with the pax versions, the Boeing for now is benefiting from a current base of operators, and a half generation newer engine, while the Airbus is lighter and carries more gas (but a little less cargo).


The 777X can accually carry more fuel, about 25 % more. The 777X can carry 198,000 liter (52,300 US gallon), compared to 159,000 liter (42,000 US gallon) for the A350.

I have not seen any reports with actual data on engine performance. Do remember that the 777X launched in 2013, some 9 years ago, with an scheduled service entry in 2019. The engine doesn't become newer while waiting for the airframe to be certified. The redesigned A350-1000 with higher weights and a more powerful engine was launched in 2011, with entry into service in 2018. These engines are not that far apart, comparing the timeline.

The A350 fellowFly technology have the possibility to futher reduce fuel consumption for some operators.

If Boeing delivers the 777XF on time (2028?), it might only be a year or so before Airbus might have started with ultrafan tests on the A350.

The long term competition between these freighters is far from certain. It is to early to tell. Single pilot cruise might also become important to reduce costs. Boeing have the benefit of a huge fleet of current generation 777F, so Airbus needs to have a significantly better product in order to get cargo airlines to switch from Boeing to Airbus freighters.


Quite off topic:
I believe FellowFly will be easy to copy for Boeing. It may take 1-2 years, but if the benefits are there, they will introduce something similar. Single pilot is a bigger gamechanger and is much harder to copy, just from a software architecture standpoint and resting areas.

I am not sure how much effect on OPEX single pilot cruise will have on a route like HKG-ANC. The hourly rate is between $300-$350. Normally, you need 3 pilots as it is a 11-12 hour stage. Single pilot cruise you need 1 pilot less and pay only double salaries on landing and take-off. Does anybody know what the salary of pilots is when they are resting? If it is a full salary then the potential savings on that stage are just 13hoursx$325=$4225. If the salaries are 20%(random number) when resting then 10x$260=$2600,- can be added to the savings. Those are quite interesting numbers on a yearly basis.

Maybe somebody has a better idea about pilot salary structures and can chip in...
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 17374
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Discussion on Potential 777XF Specs

Thu Mar 10, 2022 8:08 am

JonesNL wrote:
Single pilot is a bigger e and is much harder to copy, just from a software architecture standpoint and resting areas.


There is no proposal by Airbus to reduce the minimum number of pilots required onboard, what is being proposed has been somewhat misreported. There are looking at the number of pilots that need to alert and on duty in the cockpit during cruise.
 
TravelQ
Posts: 25
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2021 1:59 am

Re: Discussion on Potential 777XF Specs

Thu Mar 10, 2022 8:19 am

Stitch wrote:
marcelh wrote:
Makes you wonder why Boeing themselves doesn’t offer a 77W converted freighter, but goes for the 77XF instead.


Because the 777-300ERSDF will likely be a solid package freighter, but also likely not nearly as strong a general cargo freighter as the A350 or 777/777X platforms.

Boeing studied 777-200/777-200ER P2F programs for over a decade, but never pulled the trigger. My expectation is for the same reasons - the 777F was just a better all-around platform even if it was more expensive so customer interest in the P2Fs was not strong enough.


Where a new build freighter will have a service life of 30+ years a converted freighter will be somewhere around the 15-year mark.

If we add in fuel savings, maintenance and aircraft availability into a depreciated cash flow equation I suspect the market will always have a strong requirement for new build freighters.

Boeing's 20-year forecast segments the freighter market into converted and new-build freighters. There are obviously economic reasons for this to be the case.
 
JonesNL
Posts: 767
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:40 pm

Re: Discussion on Potential 777XF Specs

Thu Mar 10, 2022 10:05 am

zeke wrote:
JonesNL wrote:
Single pilot is a bigger e and is much harder to copy, just from a software architecture standpoint and resting areas.


There is no proposal by Airbus to reduce the minimum number of pilots required onboard, what is being proposed has been somewhat misreported. There are looking at the number of pilots that need to alert and on duty in the cockpit during cruise.


It would be quite illogical for Airbus to invest Single pilot operations R&D without the endgoal to reduce the amount of pilot hours…
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 15043
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Discussion on Potential 777XF Specs

Thu Mar 10, 2022 11:28 am

It would be interesting to know 777XF empty weight, production & purchase costs and engine MRO costs, to see how well it will compete with e.g. a 777-300ER converted freighter.

Will a converted freighter cost $100 mln, half for the airframe, half for the conversion/overhaul ?

Stiff competition for the 777XF program it seems. Boeing 777W's seem pretty capable, spacey, efficient & available.

Image
source: https://www.planespotters.net/photo/114 ... -777-319er
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 17374
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Discussion on Potential 777XF Specs

Thu Mar 10, 2022 12:18 pm

JonesNL wrote:
It would be quite illogical for Airbus to invest Single pilot operations R&D without the endgoal to reduce the amount of pilot hours…


Like I mentioned, it has not been reported well. Airbus hasn’t never suggested it will be a single pilot in the cockpit for takeoff and landing.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 13512
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Discussion on Potential 777XF Specs

Thu Mar 10, 2022 12:26 pm

zeke wrote:
JonesNL wrote:
Single pilot is a bigger e and is much harder to copy, just from a software architecture standpoint and resting areas.


There is no proposal by Airbus to reduce the minimum number of pilots required onboard, what is being proposed has been somewhat misreported. There are looking at the number of pilots that need to alert and on duty in the cockpit during cruise.

Directly no, indirectly yes. You will still need a minimum of 2 pilots, including two in cockpit for take off and landing. But by changing the number of pilots needed to be on duty and alert the hope is to stretch how far (how many hours) a two person crew can fly and thus the reduce the number of relief crew members on flights. Ultimately meaning you can have smaller pilot pools for a fleet compared to current.
 
amdiesen
Posts: 260
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 2:27 pm

Re: Discussion on Potential 777XF Specs

Thu Mar 10, 2022 6:45 pm

keesje wrote:
It would be interesting to know 777XF empty weight, production & purchase costs and engine MRO costs, to see how well it will compete with e.g. a 777-300ER converted freighter.

Will a converted freighter cost $100 mln, half for the airframe, half for the conversion/overhaul ?

Stiff competition for the 777XF program it seems. Boeing 777W's seem pretty capable, spacey, efficient & available...


flipdewaf wrote:
And If FX order the 777XF is it because it’s American or because it’s the better aircraft… we shall see….
Fred


The 77XF appears symbiotic for Qatar, Emirates, China Airlines and Saudia.

But the FX order choice, likely to manifest in 2022June, is the conundrum. As many posters have articulated, the 77XF was the natural goto for many factors. However, even the decision makers in Memphis appear to have been 'enlighted' by the options. One should consider that 'standardized cross section' and 'fleet(frame/engine) simplicity/commonality' are the likely decision driving metrics.

estimate.cost: b77XF = $200m
estimate.cost: b773ersf = ?$65m? (estimated at $80 before covid impacted the used market, ~$35m conversion cost) + supplemental revenue

Brian Hermesmeyer, freighter customer leader at Boeing Commercial Airplanes:
"Making sure that the airplane you're flying integrates well with any existing freighter operations you have in your fleet really has a lot to do with keeping as close to a standard cross-section as you can," he said. Otherwise, "the level of disruption in having to figure out how to stack the cargo is not small."
https://www.aviationpros.com/aircraft/n ... -to-airbus
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 17374
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Discussion on Potential 777XF Specs

Thu Mar 10, 2022 9:05 pm

Polot wrote:
But by changing the number of pilots needed to be on duty and alert the hope is to stretch how far (how many hours) a two person crew can fly and thus the reduce the number of relief crew members on flights.


Nope, I would suggest actually researching what the regulations say before commenting further, there is no relief for a two pilot crew.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 13512
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Discussion on Potential 777XF Specs

Thu Mar 10, 2022 11:37 pm

zeke wrote:
Polot wrote:
But by changing the number of pilots needed to be on duty and alert the hope is to stretch how far (how many hours) a two person crew can fly and thus the reduce the number of relief crew members on flights.


Nope, I would suggest actually researching what the regulations say before commenting further, there is no relief for a two pilot crew.

Obviously there is no relief for a two person crew. But if you shift how far a two person crew can fly you need less 3 person crews ;)

Once upon a time you could only get ETOPS180 after a year with no issues at ETOPS120. Now you can get beyond ETOPS180 from the get go. The whole point of this is to eventually get regulations changed so airlines can save on crew costs. Airbus isn’t developing this out of the goodness of their hearts on behalf of pilots. They aim to make this a selling feature to their customers (which are the airlines, not pilots). Things might be conservative at first but make no mistake, the end goal of all this research is to reduce total pilot hours on a fleet.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 17374
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Discussion on Potential 777XF Specs

Fri Mar 11, 2022 4:57 am

Polot wrote:
Obviously there is no relief for a two person crew. But if you shift how far a two person crew can fly you need less 3 person crews ;)

Once upon a time you could only get ETOPS180 after a year with no issues at ETOPS120. Now you can get beyond ETOPS180 from the get go. The whole point of this is to eventually get regulations changed so airlines can save on crew costs. Airbus isn’t developing this out of the goodness of their hearts on behalf of pilots. They aim to make this a selling feature to their customers (which are the airlines, not pilots). Things might be conservative at first but make no mistake, the end goal of all this research is to reduce total pilot hours on a fleet.


Totally irrelevant analogy.
 
xl0hr
Posts: 81
Joined: Thu May 13, 2021 11:27 am

Re: Discussion on Potential 777XF Specs

Fri Mar 11, 2022 10:19 am

zeke wrote:
Polot wrote:
Obviously there is no relief for a two person crew. But if you shift how far a two person crew can fly you need less 3 person crews ;)

Once upon a time you could only get ETOPS180 after a year with no issues at ETOPS120. Now you can get beyond ETOPS180 from the get go. The whole point of this is to eventually get regulations changed so airlines can save on crew costs. Airbus isn’t developing this out of the goodness of their hearts on behalf of pilots. They aim to make this a selling feature to their customers (which are the airlines, not pilots). Things might be conservative at first but make no mistake, the end goal of all this research is to reduce total pilot hours on a fleet.


Totally irrelevant analogy.


Let's set up a hypothetical trip: It's long enough that two pilots would exceed their flight time. Under the current rules (and without one pilot cruise) the airline will send a 3rd pilot.

Let's imagine a hypothetical rule change (seems EASA is potentially open to it): During "normal" cruise, the A350 is certified for one pilot cruise, allowing one pilot to rest in an actual crew rest area (not in the seat). On above trip, once in cruise, one pilot will fly and one pilot will go and rest. That means that two pilots could be enough now. They would each take a rest during cruise and not exceed their flight time. Once close to landing they are both back of course. If this setup is possible, the airline will only send two pilots.

As to the cost:
JonesNL wrote:
reidar76 wrote:
texl1649 wrote:
As with the pax versions, the Boeing for now is benefiting from a current base of operators, and a half generation newer engine, while the Airbus is lighter and carries more gas (but a little less cargo).


The 777X can accually carry more fuel, about 25 % more. The 777X can carry 198,000 liter (52,300 US gallon), compared to 159,000 liter (42,000 US gallon) for the A350.

I have not seen any reports with actual data on engine performance. Do remember that the 777X launched in 2013, some 9 years ago, with an scheduled service entry in 2019. The engine doesn't become newer while waiting for the airframe to be certified. The redesigned A350-1000 with higher weights and a more powerful engine was launched in 2011, with entry into service in 2018. These engines are not that far apart, comparing the timeline.

The A350 fellowFly technology have the possibility to futher reduce fuel consumption for some operators.

If Boeing delivers the 777XF on time (2028?), it might only be a year or so before Airbus might have started with ultrafan tests on the A350.

The long term competition between these freighters is far from certain. It is to early to tell. Single pilot cruise might also become important to reduce costs. Boeing have the benefit of a huge fleet of current generation 777F, so Airbus needs to have a significantly better product in order to get cargo airlines to switch from Boeing to Airbus freighters.


Quite off topic:
I believe FellowFly will be easy to copy for Boeing. It may take 1-2 years, but if the benefits are there, they will introduce something similar. Single pilot is a bigger gamechanger and is much harder to copy, just from a software architecture standpoint and resting areas.

I am not sure how much effect on OPEX single pilot cruise will have on a route like HKG-ANC. The hourly rate is between $300-$350. Normally, you need 3 pilots as it is a 11-12 hour stage. Single pilot cruise you need 1 pilot less and pay only double salaries on landing and take-off. Does anybody know what the salary of pilots is when they are resting? If it is a full salary then the potential savings on that stage are just 13hoursx$325=$4225. If the salaries are 20%(random number) when resting then 10x$260=$2600,- can be added to the savings. Those are quite interesting numbers on a yearly basis.

Maybe somebody has a better idea about pilot salary structures and can chip in...


You're forgetting hotel, allowance, training, etc. that you are paying for the third pilot. In the long run, one pilot cruise will allow for a smaller pilot pool associated with all the potential savings of that smaller pool.

As to the B777XF: am I correct in assuming one pilot cruise is infeasible on the B777X(F)? It seems that in different topics on this site people alluded to "too little automation" in case of abnormals that might make this impossible. As I see this as a large downside for the 777XF, I would believe B would try and implement it if possible. Is it possible?
 
User avatar
sassiciai
Posts: 1190
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:26 pm

Re: Discussion on Potential 777XF Specs

Fri Mar 11, 2022 2:37 pm

sassiciai wrote:
iamlucky13 wrote:
I'm hoping Boeing lands the Fed Ex order, too, but we'll see how that goes.

Why do you have this hope? Is this fanboyism, or something more intelligent?


I grew up in the area around Boeing's Washington operations and have many family members and friends who have worked for Boeing. My hope for Boeing's success derives mainly from a very normal hometown affinity and concern for my family and friends' success, and partly from a hope to see continued variety in the aircraft we see gracing the skies. I have complete confidence the A350 will be a very successful program regardless of how well the freighter variant sells, but I think the 777X will depend on good sales of the freighter.

To deride such a simple statement of my hope as "fanboyism" and suggest this reflects poorly on my intelligence was unnecessarily insulting. Grow up.[/quote]
We can all agree that "fanboyism" is not very intelligent, and you have now put forward a good reason to support your "local producer", I have no argument with that, it's actually intelligently presented. But then, the last half of your last paragraph seems to fall into the category you are accusing me of!

Kettle Pot Black
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos