Air Force has repeatedly stated they don't even want to continue the JSTAR mission. They claim satellites make it obsolete if I recall correctly.

Congress is the one telling them they "need" it.

lightsaber wrote:

janders wrote:

Good. Congrats Boeing and Fedex.

What happens to the 777 freighters when 777X line is in full swing?

Mitsubishi is on contract to produce 777 metal wings as long is there is demand on a certain allowed ramp down rate.

Eventually there will be a 778F. That plane is perfect for hauling cargo. But Boeing and GE want to keep the GE,90 powered 777 in production to reduce the manufacturing cost of spare parts as that increases profits.

Lightsaber

For very long trips, a 778F (when it happens) will be better than a 772F. But the 772F will have lower OEW and the same MTOW, so don't count it out.

Freight operations are also more acquisition cost sensitive than passenger airlines.

Revelation wrote:

iamlucky13 wrote:

Won't any tankers allocated to the ANG be acquired through a USAF run contract then transferred? Regardless of who runs the contract though, the current KC-46 plan only includes about half as many air frames as the KC-135 fleet. Perhaps they'll shrink the total fleet further than they already have as the force strategy evolves, or choose a fleet mix with more large tankers down the road when the KC-10 replacement approaches, but it seems like a given there will be more KC-46's ordered at some point.

Even aside from the KC-46, I'm intrigued by arguments the 767 could be in production as a commercial freighter for quite a few more years still, as there's not anything in the works that really displaces it. A part of me is disappointed the A330F doesn't seem to have gained much traction, but another part is happy to see 767 orders keep trickling in.

I don't think we'll see a 1:1 replacement of the KC-135 fleet by KC-46. Over time missions will shift to aircraft with little or no need to tank (UAV etc) or the tanker mission will migrate to tanker UAVs (MQ-25, etc).

Yes the military need for tankers will reduce over time . . but the military is verrry slow to change. The military aviation services are just now getting F35s, which will be around for decades and will need tankers. UCAV is the future, but there are so many issues to resolve, it may be 2040 before DoD has a configuration they are willing to offer for RFP.

The KC135s won't last that long.

Now as for an eventual KC46 replacement . . . anything could happen in that timeframe.

when are the 777s to be delivered?

2021-2025 for the 777s. So, while my math is a little shaky, it seems 777Fs will be rolling down the line more than half a decade from now. That would mean there is a good possibility of the 777-8F not hitting the streets for the better part of the next 10 years. That information and its effects on 747F and 777F orders should be fun to watch. Anyone want to put a wager on brand new 747-8Fs being in production for at least another 12 years?!?!

There are plenty of opportunities for the 767 at the USAF. The order book only covers about half of the KC-135 fleet. Whether or not the 767 takes over for everything KC-135 remains to be seen but it will already be on property, with trained folks and an established school house. I actually see a huge opportunity for the 737 seeing as it too is already "in uniform".

As for drones, they have their place. With that said, take a look at the U2 and RQ-4B. Do some real research and see the shortfalls and what the answer was. A tip of the cap to the Dragonlady and continued service on the front lines.

Revelation wrote:

iamlucky13 wrote:

Won't any tankers allocated to the ANG be acquired through a USAF run contract then transferred? Regardless of who runs the contract though, the current KC-46 plan only includes about half as many air frames as the KC-135 fleet. Perhaps they'll shrink the total fleet further than they already have as the force strategy evolves, or choose a fleet mix with more large tankers down the road when the KC-10 replacement approaches, but it seems like a given there will be more KC-46's ordered at some point.

Even aside from the KC-46, I'm intrigued by arguments the 767 could be in production as a commercial freighter for quite a few more years still, as there's not anything in the works that really displaces it. A part of me is disappointed the A330F doesn't seem to have gained much traction, but another part is happy to see 767 orders keep trickling in.

I don't think we'll see a 1:1 replacement of the KC-135 fleet by KC-46. Over time missions will shift to aircraft with little or no need to tank (UAV etc) or the tanker mission will migrate to tanker UAVs (MQ-25, etc).

Of course it will not be a 1:1 replacement. The KC-46 will carry much more fuel than the 135 and have better fuel burn itself. As for the MQ-25 it is not intended to replace the Air Force tankers, it is to take the load off the buddy tanking with other F/A-18's on the carrier deck and free them of for what they are really for, CAP and strike.

airzona11 wrote:

Great to see orders for both these planes. Still lots of MD11s/A300s to be retired and nothing in the pipeline from A or B to replace them.

ok the 777F is slightly greater volume, greater payload & greater range than MD11F so how do you figure there is no MD11F replacement in the pipeline.

CX747 wrote:

2021-2025 for the 777s. So, while my math is a little shaky, it seems 777Fs will be rolling down the line more than half a decade from now. That would mean there is a good possibility of the 777-8F not hitting the streets for the better part of the next 10 years. That information and its effects on 747F and 777F orders should be fun to watch. Anyone want to put a wager on brand new 747-8Fs being in production for at least another 12 years?!?!

.

As mentioned above, Randy Tinseth has said for some years that the 747-400F replacement market would start to roll in 2018.

He certainly seemed like a very lonely voice crying in the wilderness for that time, but maybe, ...

cheers

rbavfan wrote:

airzona11 wrote:

Great to see orders for both these planes. Still lots of MD11s/A300s to be retired and nothing in the pipeline from A or B to replace them.

ok the 777F is slightly greater volume, greater payload & greater range than MD11F so how do you figure there is no MD11F replacement in the pipeline.

For FedEx, it's not so much the on-paper capability of the plane, it's the mission. FX uses the MD11F as the backbone of the domestic fleet - yes they have a handful flying in Europe and Asia but for the most part they are in North America. As of today they still have 57 in service. The 777F will not be able to replace that capacity or frequency. The 767F is more of an MD10F replacement and still doesn't even have that much capacity. Unless FX orders 50 more 777Fs, the MD11F is a hole that no other plane seems able to fill one-for-one at this point. That's why it's not in the plans to retire them any time soon. The 10s and older A300s, yes.

In terms of the proper volume and fuselage width for a replacement, theoretically the closest possibilities would be a 787-9F (an 8F would be too small), A330-300F (current -200F is too small), or A350-900F. A theoretical 767-400F would come close.

Obviously none of these are close or even in the plans. The alternative is using the 767F as a replacement for the entire MD fleet as well as much of the Airbus fleet, adding frequency instead of matching volume. In that case we are looking at something like 150 more 767Fs needed. Don't know about the feasibility of that. Most likely is that by the time the MD-11F is retired from the fleet, there will be more options available.

Great news for Boeing & FX, solid widebody metal that makes sense for them. Now I just wonder which path they will take on the narrowbody front? Not every origin & destination can support a 76, and those few 734´s flying around Europe (ASL) and the 75s are getting a bit long in the tooth as well. Will they go down the 738BCF path or is Airbus in with a chance on A32X P2F´s? A decision that surely cannot be that far out for FX.... Interesting times ahead.

cougar15 wrote:

Great news for Boeing & FX, solid widebody metal that makes sense for them. Now I just wonder which path they will take on the narrowbody front? Not every origin & destination can support a 76, and those few 734´s flying around Europe (ASL) and the 75s are getting a bit long in the tooth as well. Will they go down the 738BCF path or is Airbus in with a chance on A32X P2F´s? A decision that surely cannot be that far out for FX.... Interesting times ahead.

The 757s will be soldiering on for many years, remember FedEx was still having them converted up until a year or two ago. For an airline that is still flying 45 year old MD-10s, the 757s are practically a new airframe.

That being said, I believe when it comes time to replace the 757F, it will be a Boeing narrowbody product, most likely at this juncture to be a 737-800F. The 737 has the exact same fuselage width as the 757.

itchief wrote:

As for the MQ-25 it is not intended to replace the Air Force tankers, it is to take the load off the buddy tanking with other F/A-18's on the carrier deck and free them of for what they are really for, CAP and strike.

Yes, that's why I said "think" in my post.

It's not hard to see how USAF might find a stealthy unmanned tanker a better idea than buying more unstealthy manned tankers.

It probably isn't a MQ-25 but it could be something based on it.

HPRamper wrote:

For FedEx, it's not so much the on-paper capability of the plane, it's the mission. FX uses the MD11F as the backbone of the domestic fleet - yes they have a handful flying in Europe and Asia but for the most part they are in North America. As of today they still have 57 in service. The 777F will not be able to replace that capacity or frequency. The 767F is more of an MD10F replacement and still doesn't even have that much capacity. Unless FX orders 50 more 777Fs, the MD11F is a hole that no other plane seems able to fill one-for-one at this point. That's why it's not in the plans to retire them any time soon. The 10s and older A300s, yes.

In terms of the proper volume and fuselage width for a replacement, theoretically the closest possibilities would be a 787-9F (an 8F would be too small), A330-300F (current -200F is too small), or A350-900F. A theoretical 767-400F would come close.

Obviously none of these are close or even in the plans. The alternative is using the 767F as a replacement for the entire MD fleet as well as much of the Airbus fleet, adding frequency instead of matching volume. In that case we are looking at something like 150 more 767Fs needed. Don't know about the feasibility of that. Most likely is that by the time the MD-11F is retired from the fleet, there will be more options available.

Seems to me the way forward would be someone sorting out a viable 77W conversion program.

It'd work well to replace/upgrade the "domestic"MD-11 role.

Probably more expensive than desired, but then again the whole 757F program was more expensive than desired but FX really had no other way forward so they bit the bullet.

HPRamper wrote:

rbavfan wrote:

airzona11 wrote:

Great to see orders for both these planes. Still lots of MD11s/A300s to be retired and nothing in the pipeline from A or B to replace them.

ok the 777F is slightly greater volume, greater payload & greater range than MD11F so how do you figure there is no MD11F replacement in the pipeline.

For FedEx, it's not so much the on-paper capability of the plane, it's the mission. FX uses the MD11F as the backbone of the domestic fleet - yes they have a handful flying in Europe and Asia but for the most part they are in North America. As of today they still have 57 in service. The 777F will not be able to replace that capacity or frequency. .

Not being argumentative - I enjoy your posts - but why exactly would a 777F not do the MD-11F job?

On the numbers it looks to be more than capable, surely?

cheers

Didn't Fedex have issues with the size of the gates at their hubs being optimized for the MD-10/11 / A300 / 767, with the wingspan of newer planes like the 777F and A330F being to big to fit these gates? Or was this UPS?

Could the replacement of the MD-11 still be undecided simply because the MD-10 and A300 replacements are going on right now? That's already a big enough investment on it's own with all the 767s and 777s coming in. And I don't really see any new cargo models coming into the market the next 5 years, so when it's time to decide in a couple of years how to continue the MD-11 replacements, they have the time, there might still be the same options as there are now.

brindabella wrote:

HPRamper wrote:

rbavfan wrote:

ok the 777F is slightly greater volume, greater payload & greater range than MD11F so how do you figure there is no MD11F replacement in the pipeline.

For FedEx, it's not so much the on-paper capability of the plane, it's the mission. FX uses the MD11F as the backbone of the domestic fleet - yes they have a handful flying in Europe and Asia but for the most part they are in North America. As of today they still have 57 in service. The 777F will not be able to replace that capacity or frequency. .

Not being argumentative - I enjoy your posts - but why exactly would a 777F not do the MD-11F job?

On the numbers it looks to be more than capable, surely?

cheers

It is much more than capable. There's just not enough of them, nowhere near enough, and even the orders on the books come nowhere near being enough capacity. FedEx would need something like 50-55 more to replace current MD11F capacity, not to mention most FedEx gates across the system are not large enough to accommodate the 777 wingspan. That's a huge issue in itself.

Momo1435 wrote:

Didn't Fedex have issues with the size of the gates at their hubs being optimized for the MD-10/11 / A300 / 767, with the wingspan of newer planes like the 777F and A330F being to big to fit these gates? Or was this UPS?

Could the replacement of the MD-11 still be undecided simply because the MD-10 and A300 replacements are going on right now? That's already a big enough investment on it's own with all the 767s and 777s coming in. And I don't really see any new cargo models coming into the market the next 5 years, so when it's time to decide in a couple of years how to continue the MD-11 replacements, they have the time, there might still be the same options as there are now.

FX has major issues with wingspan. To most outside the industry it seems like an inconsequential detail, but it is in fact a huge, huge problem. The non-wingletted 767 is just fine - they did have issues with the wingletted LAN Cargo planes which have since been returned. The 777 on the other hand is a real headache because the entire design of the gate system for the whole company is designed around the MD10/11. For instance at my ramp we have five gates and only one can accommodate a 777 unrestricted. If for some reason we get an extra 777, there's basically nowhere to park it other than begging the airport authority for a remote spot. You can't expand gates because they already border one another with no space in between. To widen gates, we would lose one. Obviously that's not going to work.

To your second point - simply put, yes. The MD11s in the fleet are roughly 15-20 years newer than the MD10s and carry more volume with equal fuel expenditure so they have a longer future with the company. The MD10s were originally planned to all be parked by now, but with the post-recession freight upswing and international expansion FedEx decided they would use the 767s for additional lift instead of one-for-one replacement. I'm guessing we will see this continue through this year's peak but I expect at least a few MD10 retirements after the new year.

I can see the dilemma. With the wingspan issues the only real replacement for the MD-11 does seem to be the 767, it's smaller than the MD-11, but it's the only freighter in production that fits the gates . Boeing or Airbus could come up with a 787 or A330/A350 Freighter variant with 777X style folding wingtips, but probaby won't happen. There's also nothing on the conversion market that could be used, it's basically just A330s or 777s. A freighter variant of the 797 MOM might be interesting, but could be to small and too expensive. The only other option is, if possible, to go for a completely new terminal. But that would be a double investment, new planes + new buildings.

The 797 MOM will be purely passenger. I don't see them working on a freighter variant for it. Just doesn't make much sense on paper - at this time at least.

Would the 777x Folding wing tips solve the gate issues and be viable MD10/11 replacements? I was under the impression total tarmac wingspan for the 777x was less than the 777 with wingtips folded up.

Momo1435 wrote:

I can see the dilemma. With the wingspan issues the only real replacement for the MD-11 does seem to be the 767, it's smaller than the MD-11, but it's the only freighter in production that fits the gates . Boeing or Airbus could come up with a 787 or A330/A350 Freighter variant with 777X style folding wingtips, but probaby won't happen. There's also nothing on the conversion market that could be used, it's basically just A330s or 777s. A freighter variant of the 797 MOM might be interesting, but could be to small and too expensive. The only other option is, if possible, to go for a completely new terminal. But that would be a double investment, new planes + new buildings.

OK. I've been waiting for some "Heavy Hitters" but no-show ... so here goes :

would the (in)famous 777 "folding wingtip" do the trick?

would the expense for say 55 frames be worth it to BA?

cheers

jagraham wrote:

Revelation wrote:

iamlucky13 wrote:

Won't any tankers allocated to the ANG be acquired through a USAF run contract then transferred? Regardless of who runs the contract though, the current KC-46 plan only includes about half as many air frames as the KC-135 fleet. Perhaps they'll shrink the total fleet further than they already have as the force strategy evolves, or choose a fleet mix with more large tankers down the road when the KC-10 replacement approaches, but it seems like a given there will be more KC-46's ordered at some point.

Even aside from the KC-46, I'm intrigued by arguments the 767 could be in production as a commercial freighter for quite a few more years still, as there's not anything in the works that really displaces it. A part of me is disappointed the A330F doesn't seem to have gained much traction, but another part is happy to see 767 orders keep trickling in.

I don't think we'll see a 1:1 replacement of the KC-135 fleet by KC-46. Over time missions will shift to aircraft with little or no need to tank (UAV etc) or the tanker mission will migrate to tanker UAVs (MQ-25, etc).

Yes the military need for tankers will reduce over time . . but the military is verrry slow to change. The military aviation services are just now getting F35s, which will be around for decades and will need tankers. UCAV is the future, but there are so many issues to resolve, it may be 2040 before DoD has a configuration they are willing to offer for RFP.

The KC135s won't last that long.

Now as for an eventual KC46 replacement . . . anything could happen in that timeframe.

Tankers don't accumulate hours the way commercial airframe do. I wouldn't be surprised if the KC-46 and other 767 derivatives are around for 80+ years. By 2040 the oldest KC-135's will be 85. I wouldn't be surprised if some of them will still be in use with foreign air forces after they are retired by the USAF.

Its a tragedy that there is no modern engine of appropriate size to hang on the 767.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

jagraham wrote:

Revelation wrote:

I don't think we'll see a 1:1 replacement of the KC-135 fleet by KC-46. Over time missions will shift to aircraft with little or no need to tank (UAV etc) or the tanker mission will migrate to tanker UAVs (MQ-25, etc).

Yes the military need for tankers will reduce over time . . but the military is verrry slow to change. The military aviation services are just now getting F35s, which will be around for decades and will need tankers. UCAV is the future, but there are so many issues to resolve, it may be 2040 before DoD has a configuration they are willing to offer for RFP.

The KC135s won't last that long.

Now as for an eventual KC46 replacement . . . anything could happen in that timeframe.

Tankers don't accumulate hours the way commercial airframe do. I wouldn't be surprised if the KC-46 and other 767 derivatives are around for 80+ years. By 2040 the oldest KC-135's will be 85. I wouldn't be surprised if some of them will still be in use with foreign air forces after they are retired by the USAF.

Perhaps they'll be replaced by unmanned tankers 20-30 years from now. And perhaps the UAVs of the future won't have the tanking demand that current manned fighters do.

trpmb6 wrote:

The 797 MOM will be purely passenger. I don't see them working on a freighter variant for it. Just doesn't make much sense on paper - at this time at least.

Would the 777x Folding wing tips solve the gate issues and be viable MD10/11 replacements? I was under the impression total tarmac wingspan for the 777x was less than the 777 with wingtips folded up.

No, the 777X folding wingtip does not solve the problem. With the wing tip folded the 777x’s span is essentially equal to the 77F’s (it is actually 2 inches wider).

brindabella wrote:

would the (in)famous 777 "folding wingtip" do the trick?

Boeing engineered that out of the "777 Classic" around the 150th frame and the Longer Range 777 family (which includes the 777 Freighter) had no design provision for it so it is not physically possible.

That's too bad. Surely the powers that be are aware and working on ideas. Now that the FAA is on board with the folding wingtip idea maybe we'll start to see that come into play more.

airzona11 wrote:

Great to see orders for both these planes. Still lots of MD11s/A300s to be retired and nothing in the pipeline from A or B to replace them.

There are no direct replacements FOR them! The B777 isn't enough??

trpmb6 wrote:

The 797 MOM will be purely passenger. I don't see them working on a freighter variant for it. Just doesn't make much sense on paper - at this time at least.

Would the 777x Folding wing tips solve the gate issues and be viable MD10/11 replacements? I was under the impression total tarmac wingspan for the 777x was less than the 777 with wingtips folded up.

The B797 could come down the line as a passenger or freighter, the sidewalls would either have windows or NOT. The interior mods could be done on a separate line once the airframe is assembled. the Wings engnines and cockpit are basically the same. Aft of the cockpit to the aft bulkhead is where the business happens.

SteelChair wrote:

Its a tragedy that there is no modern engine of appropriate size to hang on the 767.

The 767 has a long history of using the same engines as the 747...and there just happen to be very modern engines hanging from the wings of the 747-8.

I think it's very curious that Dominic Gates, the long-time aviation reporter at the Seattle Times, who I've generally found to be well-informed on an industry that is obviously quite important in the region, wrote that Airbus doesn't have sell any widebody freighters:

Boeing is well placed to take advantage because it enjoys a monopoly in mid-size and large cargo aircraft with its 767, 777 and 747 freighter jets. Rival jetmaker Airbus focuses on passenger planes almost exclusively and offers no competition for any of those cargo planes.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... o-recovery

iamlucky13 wrote:

I think it's very curious that Dominic Gates, the long-time aviation reporter at the Seattle Times, who I've generally found to be well-informed on an industry that is obviously quite important in the region, wrote that Airbus doesn't have sell any widebody freighters:

Boeing is well placed to take advantage because it enjoys a monopoly in mid-size and large cargo aircraft with its 767, 777 and 747 freighter jets. Rival jetmaker Airbus focuses on passenger planes almost exclusively and offers no competition for any of those cargo planes.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... o-recovery

I think we are really splitting hairs. To a certain point, Airbus does not have any freight competitor to the 747, 767 or 777. The A330 fits between all three and therefore it could be said is not a "competitor". Overall, Boeing is currently in a position where it's product line has mutlitple freighter variants and Airbus only has one.

The A32XP2F lines are beginning and that will provide the company an entrance into the market. How it fairs against the 737NGP2F remains to be seen. In reality, the 767 line at this time is pure brilliance. An older design that is being churned out at a profitable rate for several different clients. For it's current market, it is TOP DOG by far. Both new and used models are outstripping anything else. That is outstanding when you take into account that it's supposed replacement in the 787 is selling like hot cakes too!

iamlucky13 wrote:

I think it's very curious that Dominic Gates, the long-time aviation reporter at the Seattle Times, who I've generally found to be well-informed on an industry that is obviously quite important in the region, wrote that Airbus doesn't have sell any widebody freighters:

He's arguably not wrong since the only new-build freighter Airbus offers is the A330-200F which is larger and longer-ranged than the 767 Freighter and smaller and shorter-ranged than the 777 Freighter so it's not really directly competitive with either.

The A330-200F is tailor-made to be a direct replacement for the DC-10F / MD-10F, however I do not believe any of the current customers for the type ever operated a DC-10 freighter (Avianca leased a few passenger models) and the two largest operators of the type (FX and 5X) have selected the 767 Freighter.

Stitch wrote:

iamlucky13 wrote:

I think it's very curious that Dominic Gates, the long-time aviation reporter at the Seattle Times, who I've generally found to be well-informed on an industry that is obviously quite important in the region, wrote that Airbus doesn't have sell any widebody freighters:

He's arguably not wrong since the only new-build freighter Airbus offers is the A330-200F which is larger and longer-ranged than the 767 Freighter and smaller and shorter-ranged than the 777 Freighter so it's not really directly competitive with either.

The A330-200F is tailor-made to be a direct replacement for the DC-10F / MD-10F, however I do not believe any of the current customers for the type ever operated a DC-10 freighter (Avianca leased a few passenger models) and the two largest operators of the type (FX and 5X) have selected the 767 Freighter.

Does the lack of more sales of the A332F really boil down to what someone eluded to earlier - wingspan?

Seems like FedEx needs the 772/77E conversion program to get moving, stat. 77F have too long wingspan, and are too expensive to buy new, to be a good M11 replacement. (These are low-utilization aircraft making 1-2 domestic turns daily.) 763F are too small. 333 are in too much demand as passenger aircraft to be effective for conversion. The composite floor of the passenger 772 shouldn't be too bad for package freight.

JoeCanuck wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

Its a tragedy that there is no modern engine of appropriate size to hang on the 767.

The 767 has a long history of using the same engines as the 747...and there just happen to be very modern engines hanging from the wings of the 747-8.

The GEnx2 has a 105” fan, 13” bigger than the Pratt 406x series. A very tough fit on a 763 without modifications. But it should fit quite nicely on a 764. Weighing in at about a couple hundred pounds more than an RB211, that should be okay too.

But the resulting 764 would be too close to a 787 . .

Stitch wrote:

iamlucky13 wrote:

I think it's very curious that Dominic Gates, the long-time aviation reporter at the Seattle Times, who I've generally found to be well-informed on an industry that is obviously quite important in the region, wrote that Airbus doesn't have sell any widebody freighters:

He's arguably not wrong since the only new-build freighter Airbus offers is the A330-200F which is larger and longer-ranged than the 767 Freighter and smaller and shorter-ranged than the 777 Freighter so it's not really directly competitive with either.

I get that to a point, but on the passenger side, who would even think of arguing the 767-300ER didn't compete against the A330-200?

And regardless of that line of thought, the quote started with Boeing "enjoys a monopoly in mid-size and large cargo aircraft."

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Does the lack of more sales of the A332F really boil down to what someone eluded to earlier - wingspan?

While the span is wider than the MD-10/MD-11, it's in the same range as the 777 and 747 freighter.

I think what is putting Boeing ahead overall is they offer three widebody freighter models with volumes and payload weights below and above the A330-200F. You can also get P2F versions of the 767 and 747. So for larger operators looking for flexibility, Boeing offers more choice at the moment.

I believe the A330P2F program is important for Airbus because it will offer a cheaper option for customers to add the A330 freighter and the A330-300P2F gives them something closer to the MD11F (~95%) and 777F (85%) in terms of volume.

seabosdca wrote:

Seems like FedEx needs the 772/77E conversion program to get moving, stat. 77F have too long wingspan, and are too expensive to buy new, to be a good M11 replacement. (These are low-utilization aircraft making 1-2 domestic turns daily.) 763F are too small. 333 are in too much demand as passenger aircraft to be effective for conversion. The composite floor of the passenger 772 shouldn't be too bad for package freight.

Figures I have seen reported for average package carrier density (141kg/m3) is not that much lower than general cargo density (160kg/m3) and ex-Asia it's said to be even closer (152kg/m3). So even just moving packages would probably require the CFRP floor beams to be replaced with aluminum.

iamlucky13 wrote:

And regardless of that line of thought, the quote started with Boeing "enjoys a monopoly in mid-size and large cargo aircraft."

Of the 320 new-build widebody freighters sold between January 2009 and May 2018, 278 were Boeing, which is an 87% share. That's pretty much the dictionary definition of a monopoly.

My question is how does the P2F program help any OEM? If IAI Bedek is doing a 767 P2F conversion no frame maker sold another aircraft. I know that Boeing offers the service and may make some money on it but no new aircraft was sold.

travaz wrote:

My question is how does the P2F program help any OEM? If IAI Bedek is doing a 767 P2F conversion no frame maker sold another aircraft. I know that Boeing offers the service and may make some money on it but no new aircraft was sold.

spare parts. also supplemental certificates often require payment to the OEM for proprietary info.

Stitch wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Does the lack of more sales of the A332F really boil down to what someone eluded to earlier - wingspan?

While the span is wider than the MD-10/MD-11, it's in the same range as the 777 and 747 freighter.

I think what is putting Boeing ahead overall is they offer three widebody freighter models with volumes and payload weights below and above the A330-200F. You can also get P2F versions of the 767 and 747. So for larger operators looking for flexibility, Boeing offers more choice at the moment.

I believe the A330P2F program is important for Airbus because it will offer a cheaper option for customers to add the A330 freighter and the A330-300P2F gives them something closer to the MD11F (~95%) and 777F (85%) in terms of volume.

Well someone earlier had stated that the wider wingspan of the 777F (and A332F) were difficult to accommodate at their various terminals due to limited, pre-defined gate spacing. That would appear to make the 767F more attractive unless the capabilities of the larger 777F were needed. The A332F (as you pointed out) is sort of wedged in between, not as big as the 777F but not as conveniently sized (for FX, at least) as the 767F. Anyhow, just thinking out loud I guess that the A332F, as great as it likely is, suffers due to it's size for reasons that are to a degree outside it's control.

strfyr51 wrote:

airzona11 wrote:

Great to see orders for both these planes. Still lots of MD11s/A300s to be retired and nothing in the pipeline from A or B to replace them.

There are no direct replacements FOR them! The B777 isn't enough??

That is my point, there are a lot more 763/777 for FX to order if they are going to replace the MD11/, there is no better option on the market.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Well someone earlier had stated that the wider wingspan of the 777F (and A332F) were difficult to accommodate at their various terminals due to limited, pre-defined gate spacing. That would appear to make the 767F more attractive unless the capabilities of the larger 777F were needed.

This is true for FedEx and UPS as their original bay spacing would have been designed around the ~50m span of the MD-10F/MD-11F and ~45m of the A300F/A310F. So the 767F's ~45m span allows it to operate out of both whereas the A330F, 747F and 777F require larger bays so there would need to be re-profiling of existing bays to accommodate them in large numbers.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Anyhow, just thinking out loud I guess that the A332F, as great as it likely is, suffers due to it's size for reasons that are to a degree outside it's control.

For FX and 5X, this likely played a role in their going with the 767F as an MD-10F replacement rather than the A330F even though they have a large pool of Airbus-trained pilots with their A300F fleets.

I don't know how major general cargo terminals who handle multiple carriers do their spacing, but I would guess it should be less of an issue since many of them would likely be designed around the 747 freighter and an A330 freighter would comfortably fit there (as it does with QR and TK, both of whom also operate the 777F and 747F in addition to the A330F).

Stitch wrote:

iamlucky13 wrote:

And regardless of that line of thought, the quote started with Boeing "enjoys a monopoly in mid-size and large cargo aircraft."

Of the 320 new-build widebody freighters sold between January 2009 and May 2018, 278 were Boeing, which is an 87% share. That's pretty much the dictionary definition of a monopoly.

It literally is not the dictionary definition.

The fact that the A330F has not competed well in the widebody freighter market does not change the fact that this is where it tries to compete.

To be honest, it's in a way even more remarkable of a topic for discussion that the 767 and 777 freighters do so well in this segment. I'm reluctant to push this thread in that direction, though, given the risk of spurring some blind A vs. B responses.

jagraham wrote:

JoeCanuck wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

Its a tragedy that there is no modern engine of appropriate size to hang on the 767.

The 767 has a long history of using the same engines as the 747...and there just happen to be very modern engines hanging from the wings of the 747-8.

The GEnx2 has a 105” fan, 13” bigger than the Pratt 406x series. A very tough fit on a 763 without modifications. But it should fit quite nicely on a 764. Weighing in at about a couple hundred pounds more than an RB211, that should be okay too.

But the resulting 764 would be too close to a 787 . .

It looks like a lot of room to me...and if they needed a few more inches, they could move the engine higher in relation to the wing, ala the 787. The GEnx -2b's fan is only 10 inches more than the Pratt 4000 used on the 767.

After all Boeing did manage to put bigger engines on the ground hugging 737.

I would imagine they would have to do a whole test flight program. I agree it would be neat to see but I think Boeing is happy with the way it is. Why add cost. If it ain't broke don't fix it!

Simply put, the idea that the A330F is ideal to replace the MD-10/11 is not true as it pertains specifically to FedEx. It would ring true more from a dedicated bulk cargo carrier viewpoint but the way FedEx containerizes (as opposed to palletizing) really makes a mess out of the translation.

The majority of containers used on the MD are AMJs. Using AAD/AAX type is of course done but that's a lot of wasted lift and thus a big inefficiency. The only planes that can take double-wide AMJs are the MD and the 777. The A330 can't. It would only be able to accomodate double-wide AAD/AAX....just like the A300 and the 767F. It's easy to say that fuselage length can make up for the difference in width which is technically true volume-wise, but the scenario to imagine is that while the fleet is transitioning, what if an MD goes down on tech and the only available airframe is an A330F...those containers won't fit. You're looking at a full regauge which would be a complete disaster.

FedEx could have viably chosen the A330F over the 767F as the midsize replacement aircraft. They didn't because of 1) cockpit commonality between 757 and 767 so crews could be cross-utilized, 2) Boeing gave them a sweetheart deal that Airbus was not willing to match, and 3) ground handling details that are unimportant on here but very important for cargo handling operations. The A330F has longer range but that was not an important factor for FedEx who, unlike UPS, does not fly it in transcontinental revenue service.

HPRamper wrote:

Simply put, the idea that the A330F is ideal to replace the MD-10/11 is not true as it pertains specifically to FedEx. It would ring true more from a dedicated bulk cargo carrier viewpoint but the way FedEx containerizes (as opposed to palletizing) really makes a mess out of the translation.

The majority of containers used on the MD are AMJs. Using AAD/AAX type is of course done but that's a lot of wasted lift and thus a big inefficiency. The only planes that can take double-wide AMJs are the MD and the 777. The A330 can't. It would only be able to accomodate double-wide AAD/AAX....just like the A300 and the 767F. It's easy to say that fuselage length can make up for the difference in width which is technically true volume-wise, but the scenario to imagine is that while the fleet is transitioning, what if an MD goes down on tech and the only available airframe is an A330F...those containers won't fit. You're looking at a full regauge which would be a complete disaster.

FedEx could have viably chosen the A330F over the 767F as the midsize replacement aircraft. They didn't because of 1) cockpit commonality between 757 and 767 so crews could be cross-utilized, 2) Boeing gave them a sweetheart deal that Airbus was not willing to match, and 3) ground handling details that are unimportant on here but very important for cargo handling operations. The A330F has longer range but that was not an important factor for FedEx who, unlike UPS, does not fly it in transcontinental revenue service.

Interesting. Thanks for sharing.

HPRamper wrote:

Simply put, the idea that the A330F is ideal to replace the MD-10/11 is not true as it pertains specifically to FedEx. It would ring true more from a dedicated bulk cargo carrier viewpoint but the way FedEx containerizes (as opposed to palletizing) really makes a mess out of the translation.

So if the 772 conversion program never gets off the ground (either because of composite floors or for some other reason), what should the strategy be? Just keep the M11s going, hoping that partial engine commonality with 767s and 747s helps with engine maintenance and that airframe maintenance doesn't get too difficult? Move to A330 or more 767, change the airline's container strategy and try to mitigate the potential operational disruption you mentioned? Seems like a narrow spot.

seabosdca wrote:

HPRamper wrote:

Simply put, the idea that the A330F is ideal to replace the MD-10/11 is not true as it pertains specifically to FedEx. It would ring true more from a dedicated bulk cargo carrier viewpoint but the way FedEx containerizes (as opposed to palletizing) really makes a mess out of the translation.

So if the 772 conversion program never gets off the ground (either because of composite floors or for some other reason), what should the strategy be? Just keep the M11s going, hoping that partial engine commonality with 767s and 747s helps with engine maintenance and that airframe maintenance doesn't get too difficult? Move to A330 or more 767, change the airline's container strategy and try to mitigate the potential operational disruption you mentioned? Seems like a narrow spot.

I am sure FedEx is looking at the various options. The one thing they have on their side is time... They can keep the MD11's going for a long time. In the meantime, I am sure they are looking to change key cargo stations to be able to handle the 777. Yes, that takes more space... but such space can likely be found if you keep your eyes open for a decade or more (gates or space does open up at almost all airports over time... even if not adjacent FedEx can acquire it - and trade (case incentive possible) it if needed to get space adjacent to their current facilities. Another alternative is looking at relocating existing facilities in an airport to another more favorable location (they currently have building X, they can move to building Z when it becomes available (or gates, NMO to DEFG; which they convert to wider DEF's) - when it comes up. It will mean some money converting some stations... but, spread out over a decade or two that should resolve the vast majority of the issue and not be an huge cost burden in any one year.

Have a great day,

seabosdca wrote:

HPRamper wrote:

Simply put, the idea that the A330F is ideal to replace the MD-10/11 is not true as it pertains specifically to FedEx. It would ring true more from a dedicated bulk cargo carrier viewpoint but the way FedEx containerizes (as opposed to palletizing) really makes a mess out of the translation.

So if the 772 conversion program never gets off the ground (either because of composite floors or for some other reason), what should the strategy be? Just keep the M11s going, hoping that partial engine commonality with 767s and 747s helps with engine maintenance and that airframe maintenance doesn't get too difficult? Move to A330 or more 767, change the airline's container strategy and try to mitigate the potential operational disruption you mentioned? Seems like a narrow spot.

It is a very narrow spot, but all indications right now point to yes, for the time being. The current replacement plans address the MD10s and to a lesser extent the Airbus. Only a handful of 11s slated to be parked anytime soon. The plan is to keep them going for the time being. It's not enviable. Personally I think their solution will be to use the 767 and 757 (and later, the 757 replacement) domestically and on intra-Europe and intra-Asia routes, with some 777s on the heaviest lanes (MEM-LAX/PHX/SEA/etc) and just up the frequency overall. Move the AMJ containers to the 777 bases and everywhere else transitions to AAD.