Boeing’s CEO David Calhoun has hinted that the aircraft manufacturer will be developing the B787F to replace the B767F.

In the most definitive statement so far by any official about Boeing’s future freighter strategy, Calhoun told FreightWaves the 787 is the most likely candidate for the next cargo jet.

Boeing has also launched the B778F which have so far 43 commitments since it went on sale nine months ago.


More can be found at: https://www.freightwaves.com/news/boein ... cceed-767f

I think it makes perfect sense.

It also says to me that NMA is going to be a single aisle

MileHFL400 wrote:

Thought this was all but certain.

Wouldn’t there be some mission over lap though with a 9F and the already launched B777-8F?

A 789F would be smaller than the 778F. We also don’t know which variant of the the 787 they ar e looking at in terms of length.

Curious how this will be developed, I remember hearing a long time about that the barrel construction tactic for the 787 wasn’t ideal for a freighter.

Polot wrote:

MileHFL400 wrote:

Thought this was all but certain.

Wouldn’t there be some mission over lap though with a 9F and the already launched B777-8F?

A 789F would be smaller than the 778F. We also don’t know which variant of the the 787 they ar e looking at in terms of length.

The 9F makes the most sense I think. It terms of balancing volume, payload and range.

Also it won’t be the 8 as that is not getting the MTOW bump.

Going into 2030s Boeing SHOULD have two sizes of NMA and two sizes of the 787

Opus99 wrote:

Also it won’t be the 8 as that is not getting the MTOW bump.

Going into 2030s Boeing SHOULD have two sizes of NMA and two sizes of the 787

With all the certification/engineering/production changes already required it really wouldn’t be too difficult to make a 788F a direct 789/78X shrink if Boeing wanted.

The pax 788 is only a special case because it is more bespoke compared to the other two variants.

ikolkyo wrote:

Curious how this will be developed, I remember hearing a long time about that the barrel construction tactic for the 787 wasn’t ideal for a freighter.

As is pointed out in the linked article.

A plan B if the 777X doesn't materialise for some reason.

Noshow wrote:

A plan B if the 777X doesn't materialise for some reason.

Two completely different size of aircraft. Doubt a 787 can move anywhere near the weight and volume a 777X can

Will be interesting to see if it has folding wingtips ala 777X. The wingspan is 40 feet greater than the 767. That’s a lot of lost spots at SDF, MEM, IND, RFD, etc during the sorts.

How much will airport infrastructure influence design? I could see a design objective that a new freighter would need to fit in a 52m gate. Also, a new 3,000nm range airliner with 10% more seating than an A321 that could fit in a 36m gate.

MileHFL400 wrote:

Noshow wrote:

A plan B if the 777X doesn't materialise for some reason.

Why wouldn’t it?

Major customers such as Lufthansa and Qatar have made firm orders. Boeing has no real choice but to make it materialize.

Boeing doesn't have a choice but to make it happen, that's correct. However, right now, there are still lots of issues to solve and Boeing has gone extremely quiet on those.

scbriml wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

Curious how this will be developed, I remember hearing a long time about that the barrel construction tactic for the 787 wasn’t ideal for a freighter.

As is pointed out in the linked article.

Points out the issue but not how they will get around it.

Noshow wrote:

A plan B if the 777X doesn't materialise for some reason.

No, they should be two parallel "plan A".

Polot wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Also it won’t be the 8 as that is not getting the MTOW bump.

Going into 2030s Boeing SHOULD have two sizes of NMA and two sizes of the 787

With all the certification/engineering/production changes already required it really wouldn’t be too difficult to make a 788F a direct 789/78X shrink if Boeing wanted.

The pax 788 is only a special case because it is more bespoke compared to the other two variants.

Boeing could easily build the 787-8 in a freighter version and used the proposed 787-3 wing so as to fit in the same space as the 767 on Freighter ramps and Loading bays. what are the differences in cargo capacity for the 767-300F and the 787-8F? And they could build the 787-8F and the 787-9F for domestic and international all at the same time.

xwb777 wrote:

Boeing’s CEO David Calhoun has hinted that the aircraft manufacturer will be developing the B787F to replace the B767F.

In the most definitive statement so far by any official about Boeing’s future freighter strategy, Calhoun told FreightWaves the 787 is the most likely candidate for the next cargo jet.

Sure, it's probably the 787, but the actual quote given from Calhoun is a lot less definitive than the way the article describes it:

Calhoun: "Someday. Probably likely."

Media: "In the most definitive statement so far..."

His talk at the conference mentioned wasn't about aircraft development plans. It was rather generally about the overall business environment. Regarding cargo, he mentioned Boeing be well-positioned for the cargo growth that happened due to the pandemic, but didn't comment on plans for new aircraft. He argued that air cargo demand will remain strong, although I was disappointed he didn't say anything about the return to the market of a huge amount of passenger aircraft lower deck capacity, and how that will affect the dedicated freighter demand.

I get the impression Calhoun's response to the question didn't reflect a specific plan to work towards launching a 787 freighter, but more of a general intention: there's going to be another freighter variant eventually, and the 787 is currently the most obvious candidate, "probably."

The article does reference him as saying Boeing is not going to petition for a waiver from the 2028 emissions requirements for the 767. That also constrains future freighter options. Either package freight companies need to like the size of the 767 so much that they'll buy enough of them, for a high enough price to make a re-engine profitable, or they have to adapt to the size of the 787, or they have to push for an NMA.

ikolkyo wrote:

scbriml wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

Curious how this will be developed, I remember hearing a long time about that the barrel construction tactic for the 787 wasn’t ideal for a freighter.

As is pointed out in the linked article.

Points out the issue but not how they will get around it.

They will get around just like they did for the pair of large cargo doors already fitted on every 787 in service.

I’m sure whenever the 787 goes through its next major overhaul (787X or whatever) a freighter variant with folding wingtips to fit into parking limited to a 767 or MD11 (>170ft) would garner sales.

Calhouns comments didn’t seem too definitive on it in the near future. A GEnx powered 767-400F seems like the better short term move.

ILikeTrains wrote:

I’m sure whenever the 787 goes through its next major overhaul (787X or whatever) a freighter variant with folding wingtips to fit into parking limited to a 767 or MD11 (>170ft) would garner sales.

Calhouns comments didn’t seem too definitive on it in the near future. A GEnx powered 767-400F seems like the better short term move.

Folding tips for a freighter I doubt. Also, I look forward to what If any structural beefing up or stringers or whatever is done for a cargo cfrp frame. They should want to do that partly to eliminate any threat of third party offering conversions.

He is Do Nothing Calhoun. His goal is just to finish certification of the planes already going through the process. Which might be all that Boeing is capable of at the moment. I mean even Stan Deal is from McD.. the let's milk the DC-9 and DC-10 forever company, so I don't think he's particularly gassed to do anything all new either. I don't mind the focus on getting the house in order... It just means we won't see anything new developed until Calhoun gets the golden parachute. Nothing new will launch under his tenure... Not even a variant of an existing airframe. He is an accountant at heart, and there is no way he can stomach committing to the kind of expenditures that new programs require. He only wants to see a return to short term profitability.

likely... probably.... conditionaly modifiers.... nothing definitive at all... funny that this is even a whole separate thread... oh well... guess I'm adding my own gas (ergo hot air) to it as well.

ikolkyo wrote:

scbriml wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

Curious how this will be developed, I remember hearing a long time about that the barrel construction tactic for the 787 wasn’t ideal for a freighter.

As is pointed out in the linked article.

Points out the issue but not how they will get around it.

It points out two issues:

1) Systems routing: the original design routed systems around the intended location of a cargo door to make a future freighter variant easier to design (especially a passenger to freighter variant).

2) Composite damage detection and repair: This definitely presents some unique challenges, but they are not unique to a freighter variant. The 787 already has pretty large doors that heavy containerized cargo is loaded through. Freighter conversion would add another, larger door, but not fundamentally change the issues. Normal practice is to design with a knockdown factor based to ensure the strength is adequate, including the necessary margin, even with damage that can't be reliably detected.

Maybe the frame has be reinforced more than it would in an aluminum fuselage as a result. That's one of the tradeoffs, but it's not going make or break the business case for a 787 freight. Maybe there's a bit of extra weight there, but probably not enough to offset weight savings of carbon fiber overall.

Repairs are more difficult, but at this point, they have over a decade of experience supporting the 787, and they were developing the repair techniques well before it entered service. There's some nice discussion of some of them at these links:

https://www.compositesworld.com/article ... -on-basics
http://www.aviationfacts.eu/uploads/the ... _sheet.pdf

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

He is Do Nothing Calhoun. His goal is just to finish certification of the planes already going through the process. Which might be all that Boeing is capable of at the moment. I mean even Stan Deal is from McD.. the let's milk the DC-9 and DC-10 forever company, so I don't think he's particularly gassed to do anything all new either. I don't mind the focus on getting the house in order... It just means we won't see anything new developed until Calhoun gets the golden parachute. Nothing new will launch under his tenure... Not even a variant of an existing airframe. He is an accountant at heart, and there is no way he can stomach committing to the kind of expenditures that new programs require. He only wants to see a return to short term profitability.

likely... probably.... conditionaly modifiers.... nothing definitive at all... funny that this is even a whole separate thread... oh well... guess I'm adding my own gas (ergo hot air) to it as well.

Reversing ~2 decades worth of corporate mismanagement, correcting flaws in existing products, and rebuilding relationships with regulators takes a lot of manpower and resources.

That’s beyond the fact they’ve been quiet on internal projects like the 787IGW or re-engining the 767F, let alone any future NSA/NMA.

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

He is Do Nothing Calhoun. His goal is just to finish certification of the planes already going through the process. Which might be all that Boeing is capable of at the moment. I mean even Stan Deal is from McD.. the let's milk the DC-9 and DC-10 forever company, so I don't think he's particularly gassed to do anything all new either. I don't mind the focus on getting the house in order... It just means we won't see anything new developed until Calhoun gets the golden parachute. Nothing new will launch under his tenure... Not even a variant of an existing airframe. He is an accountant at heart, and there is no way he can stomach committing to the kind of expenditures that new programs require. He only wants to see a return to short term profitability.

likely... probably.... conditionaly modifiers.... nothing definitive at all... funny that this is even a whole separate thread... oh well... guess I'm adding my own gas (ergo hot air) to it as well.

The 777-8F literally launched like 8 months ago

Perhaps this is just Boeing's two decade drawdown on commercial aircraft...

Opus99 wrote:

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

He is Do Nothing Calhoun. His goal is just to finish certification of the planes already going through the process. Which might be all that Boeing is capable of at the moment. I mean even Stan Deal is from McD.. the let's milk the DC-9 and DC-10 forever company, so I don't think he's particularly gassed to do anything all new either. I don't mind the focus on getting the house in order... It just means we won't see anything new developed until Calhoun gets the golden parachute. Nothing new will launch under his tenure... Not even a variant of an existing airframe. He is an accountant at heart, and there is no way he can stomach committing to the kind of expenditures that new programs require. He only wants to see a return to short term profitability.

likely... probably.... conditionaly modifiers.... nothing definitive at all... funny that this is even a whole separate thread... oh well... guess I'm adding my own gas (ergo hot air) to it as well.

The 777-8F literally launched like 8 months ago

Big whooop... we always new that was the full justification for the 778 anyway and that it was the successor to 772F. It was a captain obvious launch. Surprised anyone in the C-Suites found the cajones to do it...

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

He is Do Nothing Calhoun. His goal is just to finish certification of the planes already going through the process. Which might be all that Boeing is capable of at the moment. I mean even Stan Deal is from McD.. the let's milk the DC-9 and DC-10 forever company, so I don't think he's particularly gassed to do anything all new either. I don't mind the focus on getting the house in order... It just means we won't see anything new developed until Calhoun gets the golden parachute. Nothing new will launch under his tenure... Not even a variant of an existing airframe. He is an accountant at heart, and there is no way he can stomach committing to the kind of expenditures that new programs require. He only wants to see a return to short term profitability.

likely... probably.... conditionaly modifiers.... nothing definitive at all... funny that this is even a whole separate thread... oh well... guess I'm adding my own gas (ergo hot air) to it as well.

The 777-8F literally launched like 8 months ago

Big whooop... we always new that was the full justification for the 778 anyway and that it was the successor to 772F. It was a captain obvious launch. Surprised anyone in the C-Suites found the cajones to do it...

Your statement was Calhoun would never even launch a variant, which is demonstrably false. Further the XF is still different than the -8 was intended to be.

It will make sense anyway to refresh the 787 with some PIP, weight adjustments, lessons learned from the manufacturing and assembly hick ups, aerodynamic optimisations and such. Doing a freighter is okay and long term promising but Boeing must be careful not to end up as a one hit wonder with only the Charleston made Dreamliner left to stay on the long run.

It is time to invest again in clean sheets. The early phases are not that costly and perfectly doable now. Hopefully they don't squeeze out whatever they might earn into dividends now and again forget about investing. Add experienced staff retiring and there will be a point of no return to the commercial market. I want Boeing to stay.

By contrast, Airbus composite aircraft are made with connecting panels, making them easier to repair.

Now, I have a question on this; while this was a sales/marketing pitch when the A350 was developed/launched, didn’t they decide later that no, they aren’t replacing the panels in the field? Am I making that up?

texl1649 wrote:

By contrast, Airbus composite aircraft are made with connecting panels, making them easier to repair.

Now, I have a question on this; while this was a sales/marketing pitch when the A350 was developed/launched, didn’t they decide later that no, they aren’t replacing the panels in the field? Am I making that up?

Airbus dropped that argument when the size of the panels became more public and everyone realized that in the real world damage was never going to result in panel replacement but rather locally patched just like the 787.

I suspect the whole barrel makes 787F more challenging thing in the article is coming straight from Scott Hamilton (of Leeham News). He just threw that in his A350F writeup (https://leehamnews.com/2021/11/11/airbu ... fications/ ) and has never provided any convincing explanation as to why (and since the article was basically a coordinated Airbus PR piece I am leery about statements made about Boeing products/potential Boeing response in them).

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

likely... probably.... conditionaly modifiers.... nothing definitive at all... funny that this is even a whole separate thread... oh well... guess I'm adding my own gas (ergo hot air) to it as well.

You're not fluent in CEO-speak and the mechanisms of American capitalism. A CEO will declare launch of a multi-$ Billion project only after the BoD has approved it.

Noshow wrote:

It will make sense anyway to refresh the 787 with some PIP, weight adjustments, lessons learned from the manufacturing and assembly hick ups, aerodynamic optimisations and such. Doing a freighter is okay and long term promising but Boeing must be careful not to end up as a one hit wonder with only the Charleston made Dreamliner left to stay on the long run.

It is time to invest again in clean sheets. The early phases are not that costly and perfectly doable now. Hopefully they don't squeeze out whatever they might earn into dividends now and again forget about investing. Add experienced staff retiring and there will be a point of no return to the commercial market. I want Boeing to stay.

I believe NMA will come to market in late 23/24. But if they go with 787F I think the NMA will be a single aisle sized between the 757-200 and 300 and then shrunk from 2030 to replace the MAX family. Same aerodynamics but with Something like CFM rise engine. Kills two birds with one stone. Just a different engine application for the same frame to keep it up to date. But they need something now.

From the conversation pre farnborough. That seems to be plan as Boeing says they need to learn to make composite aircraft at 20-30 frames a month.

So it indicates to me. Composite single aisle. Never been done before, the weight loss is not as sexy as widebody but a lot of things need to work for it to make sense from a price perspective and this is where Boeings digital engineering comes in.

I’ve gone off on a tangent here. But Boeing will launch a new aircraft and that’s what my bet is

Opus99 wrote:

Noshow wrote:

A plan B if the 777X doesn't materialise for some reason.

Two completely different size of aircraft. Doubt a 787 can move anywhere near the weight and volume a 777X can

It wasn't meant to. the 787 was a replacement for the 767 all along. but when the KC-46 happened the 767 got a new lease on life as a freighter., Nobody is looking for PAX 767's anymore. the 787 will replace the 767 in everything BUT the freighter role. and Now? Maybe even that. though? It remains to be seen how rugged the CFRP fuselage might be as compared to the 767 aluminum fuselage, Especially around the cargo Door.

Polot wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

By contrast, Airbus composite aircraft are made with connecting panels, making them easier to repair.

Now, I have a question on this; while this was a sales/marketing pitch when the A350 was developed/launched, didn’t they decide later that no, they aren’t replacing the panels in the field? Am I making that up?

Airbus dropped that argument when the size of the panels became more public and everyone realized that in the real world damage was never going to result in panel replacement but rather locally patched just like the 787.

I suspect the whole barrel makes 787F more challenging thing in the article is coming straight from Scott Hamilton (of Leeham News). He just threw that in his A350F writeup (https://leehamnews.com/2021/11/11/airbu ... fications/ ) and has never provided any convincing explanation as to why (and since the article was basically a coordinated Airbus PR piece I am leery about statements made about Boeing products/potential Boeing response in them).

That makes senes, thx. Scott/Leeham is definitely a close business partner for Airbus marketing folks. For composite repairs that are not just superficial, there must be some high quality imaging/scans that are part of the repair manuals/procedures. The quality of the bonding for the ‘patch’ has to be very well confirmed.

jbs2886 wrote:

Your statement was Calhoun would never even launch a variant, which is demonstrably false. Further the XF is still different than the -8 was intended to be.

you are correct. i was wrong about that. perhaps I will be wrong again and we will see a 78XF launched as well. wouldn't that be a pleasant surprise.

ILikeTrains wrote:

I’m sure whenever the 787 goes through its next major overhaul (787X or whatever) a freighter variant with folding wingtips to fit into parking limited to a 767 or MD11 (>170ft) would garner sales.

Calhouns comments didn’t seem too definitive on it in the near future. A GEnx powered 767-400F seems like the better short term move.

You would need folding wingtips for a 767-400F as well as the wingspan of the aircraft is wider than the 767-300, even with winglets.

Ronaldo747 wrote:

ILikeTrains wrote:

I’m sure whenever the 787 goes through its next major overhaul (787X or whatever) a freighter variant with folding wingtips to fit into parking limited to a 767 or MD11 (>170ft) would garner sales.

Calhouns comments didn’t seem too definitive on it in the near future. A GEnx powered 767-400F seems like the better short term move.

You would need folding wingtips for a 767-400F as well as the wingspan of the aircraft is wider than the 767-300, even with winglets.

The 763F uses MD11-capable gates already. The 764 has more wingspan, the same as an MD11 at 170 feet so should be just fine in that aspect.

A 787F would certainly need a folding wing.

HPRamper wrote:

The 763F uses MD11-capable gates already. The 764 has more wingspan, the same as an MD11 at 170 feet so should be just fine in that aspect.

Fedex even did not want 763s with winglets because the added wingspan is already too much for them (at least for MEM ops). They had some wingletted 763 leased from LAN Cargo but they were based at IND afaik. As they got more factory new aircraft they returned them.

The wingspan of the 767-400ER (incl the added raked wing tips) are exactly matched to fit into ICAO cat D parking positions.
Wingspan = 51.92 m ( 170 ft 4 inch), ICAO Cat D = < 52 meter)

Note : wingspan of MD11(F) = 51,7 meters

https://twitter.com/leehamnews/status/1 ... FAQeIliJ8A

Boeing shows 787F and NMA-F to FedEx. I mean FEDEX CEO says they’re both PPT presentations at the moment but they’ll both be terrific freighters

“Smith said FedEx has seen concepts from Boeing for the 787F and the NMA-F. He labeled the concepts as “cartoons—that’s all they are at this time. I think both of them would be terrific freighters. The question is how much non-recurring expenses you have to put on the airplane to make the numbers work.”
Smith said the NMA-F would make sense. Its dual aisle design would take the same container as the 767.”

IMO, the one Boeing decides to launch I think will be the determinant on whether the new plane is single aisle or twin aisle

Is it just me, or does that cargo door look smallish somehow? It obviously needs to fit in that front fuselage barrel as a cutout. Would a 787F need any loading anti-tailtip device?

Noshow wrote:

Is it just me, or does that cargo door look smallish somehow? It obviously needs to fit in that front fuselage barrel as a cutout.

I think that’s just Leehams interpretation and not what Boeing actually showed

Opus99 wrote:

https://twitter.com/leehamnews/status/1572122918234230786?s=46&t=8570ZwWVF2m0FAQeIliJ8A

Boeing shows 787F and NMA-F to FedEx. I mean FEDEX CEO says they’re both PPT presentations at the moment but they’ll both be terrific freighters

“Smith said FedEx has seen concepts from Boeing for the 787F and the NMA-F. He labeled the concepts as “cartoons—that’s all they are at this time. I think both of them would be terrific freighters. The question is how much non-recurring expenses you have to put on the airplane to make the numbers work.”
Smith said the NMA-F would make sense. Its dual aisle design would take the same container as the 767.”

IMO, the one Boeing decides to launch I think will be the determinant on whether the new plane is single aisle or twin aisle

It will probably depend on what the pax-airlines want as a new Boeing aircraft. Unfortunately for FedEx the Cargo-market is just an afterthought.

So FedEx will either have to swallow the larger wing span of the 787F or wait at leat another 15 years for the NMA-F (even with an EIS in 2030-2032), the -F will need another 5 years on top I guess.

MileHFL400 wrote:

Thought this was all but certain.

Wouldn’t there be some mission over lap though with a 9F and the already launched B777-8F?

I'm not sure what the other option would be. Either they produce a 787F or they stop making freighters in that size category once they move on from the 767F.

Maybe the -8 and -9 wing span just don't work as a 767 replacement? A new folding wing is expensive, and the 787 is far from breakeven.

FluidFlow wrote:

It will probably depend on what the pax-airlines want as a new Boeing aircraft. Unfortunately for FedEx the Cargo-market is just an afterthought.

So FedEx will either have to swallow the larger wing span of the 787F or wait at leat another 15 years for the NMA-F (even with an EIS in 2030-2032), the -F will need another 5 years on top I guess.

I can’t help but think FedEx and UPS will have to bite the bullet and accept that eventually, there might not be a suitable cargo aircraft that fits into their preexisting box. No doubt they’ve got decades left of the 767s, but eventually they’ll have to move on. And due to the way the industry works, their freighters will always be a tag along to what the pax carriers want.

strfyr51 wrote:

It remains to be seen how rugged the CFRP fuselage might be as compared to the 767 aluminum fuselage, Especially around the cargo Door.

When they originally pitched the 787, they took a sledge hammer to a composite panel.

Besides, they can always put a strike plate around the door reveal.

As for passenger to freighter conversion, they have shown that they can replace fuselage section through that Ethiopian 787 fire incident.

Although for passenger to freighter conversion, there may be a way to future proof the passenger version by having some of the freighter strengthening built in at a price of performance.

None on that can be determined until after they design the freighter first. Then a cost benefit analysis is done.

bt

So what exactly was shown to Fedex that was NMA like and twin aisle? Since Calhoun stated the NMA was dead. The twin aisle domestic WB is still being talked about?

For Boeing the 787F would perhaps be the cheapest replacement for the 767-300F, due the current difficulties within the Boeing Company.

However for the cargo/parcel airlines it would be a very expensive variant (ownwership cost), especially seen the relative low utilisation of their fleets, compared to the long range passenger fleets of major airlines, were the 787 has been specially designed for.
Also the frequenty of cargo loading mishaps, is far higher in cargo operations, than in the pax fleet, causing major disruptions with a 787F, because carbon repairs require far more expertice and downtime than a a relative simple aluminium doubler installation at the cargo maindeck.
A 787F could perhaps be a partial replacement for the MD11F (but with the same wingspan difficulties, causing parking space constraints)

For FedEx and UPS, the largest customers for new 767-300F aircraft, a 787F variant would certainly not be the ideal replacement, because at a lot of hubs the entire short/medium haul aircraft parking spots would have to be re-arranged, causing a reduction of available parking positions on the same space, especially at the main hubs. (MEM, IND and SDF)
Also keep in mind : were is the current 767-300F fleet used for : continental short and medium stretches , with an occasional long range flight with limited payload (mostly for crew and/or aircraft positioning.)

Perhaps at a later stage, a 787 P-F could be a partial solution , but new 787F"s as replacement for a 767-300F IMHO would be a non starter.

Ideal for Boeing (Calhoun) , but not for the intended customers