The 747-8F is quite large, and the 777F is both large and yesterday's technology.

I believe the 787, A350 and the 777X would need strengthened floors, and the next available production slots are far off.

Therefore I predict the A330neo will be the next widebody to gain a from the factory freighter variant. Airbus would to sell more, there are slots to be had, the technology is good (especially for not-super-long stage lengths) and cost to make a freighter variant should be minimal. Finally, a freighter A330neo would feed right into the military program of A330neo tanker aircraft.

I have to ask, for about the tenth time, who in the blue hell is buying an A330neo tanker? Who is going to pay the development cost who hasn’t already bought the existing tanker? Tankers last for 30 or 50 years.

Assemble a list of nations to create a critical mass to pay the cost for it and tell me how many frames they need. I would guess you can’t do it.

The problem with your prediction is that the A330neo will not fit into the same space that the DC-10/MD-11/767F will fit into. The 767 has a wing span of 47.5m. That is a big reason that the A330F(60m) is a slow seller and a A330neo(64m) will have an even tougher time with the fit. Airport ramp space is not cheap and it is not easy to add.

With so many A330 Ceos about to come on stream for retirement as pax aircraft, there will be ample supply of good and cheap frames for conversion to freighters. I doubt a new build A330FNeo will sell at all, seeing how the current version has sold poorly.

flee wrote:

With so many A330 Ceos about to come on stream for retirement as pax aircraft, there will be ample supply of good and cheap frames for conversion to freighters. I doubt a new build A330FNeo will sell at all, seeing how the current version has sold poorly.

current 330 has a big problem of not having a leveled cabin on the ground.

hongkongflyer wrote:

flee wrote:

With so many A330 Ceos about to come on stream for retirement as pax aircraft, there will be ample supply of good and cheap frames for conversion to freighters. I doubt a new build A330FNeo will sell at all, seeing how the current version has sold poorly.

current 330 has a big problem of not having a leveled cabin on the ground.

Not a big problem as the cargo deck will be equipped with motorised equipment to move the cargo loads into place.

bigjku wrote:

I have to ask, for about the tenth time, who in the blue hell is buying an A330neo tanker? Who is going to pay the development cost who hasn’t already bought the existing tanker? Tankers last for 30 or 50 years.

Assemble a list of nations to create a critical mass to pay the cost for it and tell me how many frames they need. I would guess you can’t do it.

It depends on the cost.

If it's really as simple as move the tanker stuff over to the new frame ...

I can think of several nations that might want two or five. Saudi Arabia. Brazil. India.

But I get your point.

bigjku wrote:

I have to ask, for about the tenth time, who in the blue hell is buying an A330neo tanker? Who is going to pay the development cost who hasn’t already bought the existing tanker? Tankers last for 30 or 50 years.

Assemble a list of nations to create a critical mass to pay the cost for it and tell me how many frames they need. I would guess you can’t do it.

It depends on the cost. If it's really as simple as moving the tanker kit to the new frame ...

I can think of several nations that might want 3 ..5. Saudi Arabia. India. Singapore. Brazil.

But I totally get your valid point.

itchief wrote:

The problem with your prediction is that the A330neo will not fit into the same space that the DC-10/MD-11/767F will fit into. The 767 has a wing span of 47.5m. That is a big reason that the A330F(60m) is a slow seller and a A330neo(64m) will have an even tougher time with the fit. Airport ramp space is not cheap and it is not easy to add.

And here is the correct answer. The wingspan of the A330 is a huge issue for freight operators. That’s why no new A330Fs have been ordered in years, and the conversion program is operating at a mere trickle, especially when compared to the output of the 767 P2F program.

The 787 on the other hand was designed from the beginning with a freighter conversion program in mind. I’d expect that to happen well before any other Airbus widebody conversion program is launched. Fleet leaders are still under 30000 hours though, so that might be a few more years.

itchief wrote:

The problem with your prediction is that the A330neo will not fit into the same space that the DC-10/MD-11/767F will fit into. The 767 has a wing span of 47.5m. That is a big reason that the A330F(60m) is a slow seller and a A330neo(64m) will have an even tougher time with the fit. Airport ramp space is not cheap and it is not easy to add.

I think that's true, but they cannot keep flying 767s forever. It's older tech, with higher fuel costs. How long do you think they will keep buying new 767s? I totally agree the existing 767s will be flying for a long time, but some cargo operators have enough utilization they will get better economics from a new airframe, and the 767 is fuel ineffecient.

kitplane01 wrote:

itchief wrote:

The problem with your prediction is that the A330neo will not fit into the same space that the DC-10/MD-11/767F will fit into. The 767 has a wing span of 47.5m. That is a big reason that the A330F(60m) is a slow seller and a A330neo(64m) will have an even tougher time with the fit. Airport ramp space is not cheap and it is not easy to add.

I think that's true, but they cannot keep flying 767s forever. It's older tech, with higher fuel costs. How long do you think they will keep buying new 767s? I totally agree the existing 767s will be flying for a long time, but some cargo operators have enough utilization they will get better economics from a new airframe, and the 767 is fuel ineffecient.

The 767 will still be a relatively low acquisition cost since the line will keep going thanks to the KC-46, which is evident by FedEx taking a ton of them.

kitplane01 wrote:

t depends on the cost. If it's really as simple as moving the tanker kit to the new frame ...

I can think of several nations that might want 3 ..5. Saudi Arabia. India. Singapore. Brazil.

But I totally get your valid point.

Unfortunately, 12-20 frames isn't going to cover the near-$1 billion development cost, especially when the A330ceo tanker is still available and modern.

kitplane01 wrote:

The 747-8F is quite large, and the 777F is both large and yesterday's technology

Technology that has gone through many PIP's over the years to still make it a relevant aircraft that's still outselling the A330 and giving the A350 and even the A380 a run for their money.

kitplane01 wrote:

The 747-8F is quite large, and the 777F is both large and yesterday's technology.

Funny, you must have missed TK buying yet more 777F jets and ignore the A330F.

Considering the A330F has arguably been the worst return on Airbus" widebody investment and the overall A330neo family struggling for sales, I doubt an A330neoF would solve issues.

There's no escaping the fact that Airbus is totally dead in the widebody freighter game. Completely dead. Even an A359F wouldn't change the dynamics since Boeing has plans for a 777X freighter too.

FrenchPotatoEye wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

The 747-8F is quite large, and the 777F is both large and yesterday's technology.

Funny, you must have missed TK buying yet more 777F jets and ignore the A330F.

Considering the A330F has arguably been the worst return on Airbus" widebody investment and the overall A330neo family struggling for sales, I doubt an A330neoF would solve issues.

There's no escaping the fact that Airbus is totally dead in the widebody freighter game. Completely dead. Even an A359F wouldn't change the dynamics since Boeing has plans for a 777X freighter too.

I believe that the A330neo has lower cost per ton*kilometer than a 777F, thanks to the new engine. I totally agree the 777F has been a success, but the technology is old and the 777XF is nowehere to be seen (yet).

flee wrote:

hongkongflyer wrote:

flee wrote:

With so many A330 Ceos about to come on stream for retirement as pax aircraft, there will be ample supply of good and cheap frames for conversion to freighters. I doubt a new build A330FNeo will sell at all, seeing how the current version has sold poorly.

current 330 has a big problem of not having a leveled cabin on the ground.

Not a big problem as the cargo deck will be equipped with motorised equipment to move the cargo loads into place.

If it wasn't a big problem, why did Airbus go to the trouble of making the 330F with a higher standing nose to level it out ?

kitplane01 wrote:

FrenchPotatoEye wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

The 747-8F is quite large, and the 777F is both large and yesterday's technology.

Funny, you must have missed TK buying yet more 777F jets and ignore the A330F.

Considering the A330F has arguably been the worst return on Airbus" widebody investment and the overall A330neo family struggling for sales, I doubt an A330neoF would solve issues.

There's no escaping the fact that Airbus is totally dead in the widebody freighter game. Completely dead. Even an A359F wouldn't change the dynamics since Boeing has plans for a 777X freighter too.

I believe that the A330neo has lower cost per ton*kilometer than a 777F, thanks to the new engine. I totally agree the 777F has been a success, but the technology is old and the 777XF is nowehere to be seen (yet).

Your A330neo freighter is just as much vaporware. The current 330f can barely cross the Atlantic so no matter how efficient a current airbus freighter might be, it’s never going to replace a 777f or MD11 doing a MEM-Europe run.

kitplane01 wrote:

I believe that the A330neo has lower cost per ton*kilometer than a 777F, thanks to the new engine. I totally agree the 777F has been a success, but the technology is old and the 777XF is nowehere to be seen (yet).

Wrong again.

The 777F is not even 9 years old. How is that old? 747 freighters and 767 freighters in service today are older and you miss out the engine PIPs that GE has done for GE90-110B as well.

I doubt fuel burn is an issue for operators since the 777F will always carry significantly more higher capacity/yield freight far farther than any mythical A330neoF. So that's that out the window.

As for 777X-Freighter, that you say it's 'nowhere to be seen' underscores just how little/nothing you know about it.

jupiter2 wrote:

flee wrote:

hongkongflyer wrote:

current 330 has a big problem of not having a leveled cabin on the ground.

Not a big problem as the cargo deck will be equipped with motorised equipment to move the cargo loads into place.

If it wasn't a big problem, why did Airbus go to the trouble of making the 330F with a higher standing nose to level it out ?

Because there is always more than one way to skin a cat!

A new build freighter is rather expensive and Airbus needed to cut costs as much as it can. Repositioning the nose wheels is far cheaper than installing mechanised load systems. On used frames, the extra expense of interior cargo handling equipment isn't so critical as the airframe itself costs a lot less than a new build airframe.

FrenchPotatoEye wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

I believe that the A330neo has lower cost per ton*kilometer than a 777F, thanks to the new engine. I totally agree the 777F has been a success, but the technology is old and the 777XF is nowehere to be seen (yet).

Wrong again.

The 777F is not even 9 years old. How is that old? 747 freighters and 767 freighters in service today are older and you miss out the engine PIPs that GE has done for GE90-110B as well.

I doubt fuel burn is an issue for operators since the 777F will always carry significantly more higher capacity/yield freight far farther than any mythical A330neoF. So that's that out the window.

As for 777X-Freighter, that you say it's 'nowhere to be seen' underscores just how little/nothing you know about it.

It is your opinion that fuel burn does not matter, not a fact.

I would assume that a 777XF is rather mythical as well. Probably not being able to carry as much freight as the 777F because of a higher OEW at the same MTOW. And the 777XF would cost real money, you would not get them at end of the line prices like the 777F
The only advantage, that a 777XF could have over the 777F could be fuel burn and you declared that that does not matter.

FrenchPotatoEye wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

I believe that the A330neo has lower cost per ton*kilometer than a 777F, thanks to the new engine. I totally agree the 777F has been a success, but the technology is old and the 777XF is nowehere to be seen (yet).

Wrong again.

The 777F is not even 9 years old. How is that old? 747 freighters and 767 freighters in service today are older and you miss out the engine PIPs that GE has done for GE90-110B as well.

I doubt fuel burn is an issue for operators since the 777F will always carry significantly more higher capacity/yield freight far farther than any mythical A330neoF. So that's that out the window.

As for 777X-Freighter, that you say it's 'nowhere to be seen' underscores just how little/nothing you know about it.

I know you cannot get a 777xf anytime soon. It’s not for yet for sale. And I know that if it does arrive, it will probably sell well.

I believe the a330neo has a significant fuel burn per ton carried advantage over the 777. Its not the 777s fault. It was the best plane in the world when originally produced. But now the a33neo has new engines, and the 777XF is yet to arrive.

Some freight operators have a high enough utilization to make a new build freight Econo ally smart. These companies would consider an A330neoF. Many there do not, and will only conside a conversion.

An A330 will use more ramp space than a 767. But so will every widebody replacement to the 767, and the 767 is increasingly fuel inefficient. If/when fuel prices go up, the 767 will have increasingly bad economics. If fuel prices stay low, that helps the 767.

It has been pointed out that the a330f did not sell well compared to the 767. True. But the a330 has similar economics to the 767 and the a330neo has much better economics than the 767. So I don’t think that data point says much about the future.

mjoelnir wrote:

FrenchPotatoEye wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

I believe that the A330neo has lower cost per ton*kilometer than a 777F, thanks to the new engine. I totally agree the 777F has been a success, but the technology is old and the 777XF is nowehere to be seen (yet).

Wrong again.

The 777F is not even 9 years old. How is that old? 747 freighters and 767 freighters in service today are older and you miss out the engine PIPs that GE has done for GE90-110B as well.

I doubt fuel burn is an issue for operators since the 777F will always carry significantly more higher capacity/yield freight far farther than any mythical A330neoF. So that's that out the window.

As for 777X-Freighter, that you say it's 'nowhere to be seen' underscores just how little/nothing you know about it.

It is your opinion that fuel burn does not matter, not a fact.

I would assume that a 777XF is rather mythical as well. Probably not being able to carry as much freight as the 777F because of a higher OEW at the same MTOW. And the 777XF would cost real money, you would not get them at end of the line prices like the 777F
The only advantage, that a 777XF could have over the 777F could be fuel burn and you declared that that does not matter.

I never said it doesn't matter, I said it's not an issue (as in a primary/overriding one) - otherwise Airbus would have surely launched an A330neoF already.

But they haven't because fuel burn alone is not enough to launch such a jet because of its inherent inferiority Re payload/range capability versus the bigger 777F.

As for 777-XF, I cant speak too much about it publicly suffice to say you are wrong about what it will carry vs 777F. Thanks.

FrenchPotatoEye wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

FrenchPotatoEye wrote:

Wrong again.

The 777F is not even 9 years old. How is that old? 747 freighters and 767 freighters in service today are older and you miss out the engine PIPs that GE has done for GE90-110B as well.

I doubt fuel burn is an issue for operators since the 777F will always carry significantly more higher capacity/yield freight far farther than any mythical A330neoF. So that's that out the window.

As for 777X-Freighter, that you say it's 'nowhere to be seen' underscores just how little/nothing you know about it.

It is your opinion that fuel burn does not matter, not a fact.

I would assume that a 777XF is rather mythical as well. Probably not being able to carry as much freight as the 777F because of a higher OEW at the same MTOW. And the 777XF would cost real money, you would not get them at end of the line prices like the 777F
The only advantage, that a 777XF could have over the 777F could be fuel burn and you declared that that does not matter.

I never said it doesn't matter, I said it's not an issue (as in a primary/overriding one) - otherwise Airbus would have surely launched an A330neoF already.

But they haven't because fuel burn alone is not enough to launch such a jet because of its inherent inferiority Re payload/range capability versus the bigger 777F.

As for 777-XF, I cant speak too much about it publicly suffice to say you are wrong about what it will carry vs 777F. Thanks.

In passenger aircraft, larger planes need to have better economics than small on a per seat basis because the smaller planes are more flexible and can offer more frequency. I understood that in the freight market it is also true that larger planes need to have better economics because smaller planes are more flexible. For example the success of the 767 over the a330ceo.

The single biggest issue with the A330F, is that it sort of falls between the chairs. It's either too big or too small to really make a good fit. It cannot carry a big enough payload over 8+ hours to make economical sense, and there's not much in way of a market to carry 65 tons over 5-7 hours with the cost of a new build aircraft.

The only way to make a real success out of the A330F is a) raise the MZFW to allow a payload of 70-75 tons and b) raise MTOW allowing it to carry those 70-75 tons over 8-10 hours. Neither is likely to be possible, which means the A330F will continue to occupy a rather small niche market.

The A330P2F, however, is a different proposition. With much lower acquisition costs, it becomes profitable to have an 'in between' aircraft carrying 60 tons for 5-7 hours, making it an excellent US trans-continental, intra-Asia and EU-Middle East / West African shuttle.

But for long-haul, heavy lift, the 777F is still very much uncontested.

Spacepope wrote:

The 787 on the other hand was designed from the beginning with a freighter conversion program in mind.

Do you have a source for that?

FrenchPotatoEye wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

FrenchPotatoEye wrote:

Wrong again.

The 777F is not even 9 years old. How is that old? 747 freighters and 767 freighters in service today are older and you miss out the engine PIPs that GE has done for GE90-110B as well.

I doubt fuel burn is an issue for operators since the 777F will always carry significantly more higher capacity/yield freight far farther than any mythical A330neoF. So that's that out the window.

As for 777X-Freighter, that you say it's 'nowhere to be seen' underscores just how little/nothing you know about it.

It is your opinion that fuel burn does not matter, not a fact.

I would assume that a 777XF is rather mythical as well. Probably not being able to carry as much freight as the 777F because of a higher OEW at the same MTOW. And the 777XF would cost real money, you would not get them at end of the line prices like the 777F
The only advantage, that a 777XF could have over the 777F could be fuel burn and you declared that that does not matter.

I never said it doesn't matter, I said it's not an issue (as in a primary/overriding one) - otherwise Airbus would have surely launched an A330neoF already.

But they haven't because fuel burn alone is not enough to launch such a jet because of its inherent inferiority Re payload/range capability versus the bigger 777F.

As for 777-XF, I cant speak too much about it publicly suffice to say you are wrong about what it will carry vs 777F. Thanks.

We do not know if Airbus will offer a A330Fneo or keep offering the A330Fceo. Freight versions also at Boeing have followed time wise the pax models.
Airbus has not yet finalized the 251t version of the pax A330neo.

If we have a look at a possible A330-800F 251t compared to the A330-200F 233t. We could see more payload or more range.
The A330F never got the MTOW increase to 242t.

OEW 120t instead of 109T.
Payload both 69t
Fuel 62t instead of 55t and that at 10% lower fuel burn would mean about 5000nm instead of 4000nm range with the same payload. That is the range offered by the 777F, 4970nm, at full payload.

or Payload about 80 t at an unchanged range of 4000nm.
OEW 120t, Payload 80t fuel 51t

or a A330-900F with
OEW 125t, Payload 75t and range 4000nm for more volume.

All numbers are guesses based on the OEW differences of the A330-200 and A330-300 to the A330F and the estimated OEW of the A330-900 and A330-800.

flee wrote:

hongkongflyer wrote:

flee wrote:

With so many A330 Ceos about to come on stream for retirement as pax aircraft, there will be ample supply of good and cheap frames for conversion to freighters. I doubt a new build A330FNeo will sell at all, seeing how the current version has sold poorly.

current 330 has a big problem of not having a leveled cabin on the ground.

Not a big problem as the cargo deck will be equipped with motorised equipment to move the cargo loads into place.

Clearly you have never tried to push a 10,000 lb pallet that is improperly built and won’t move. Your lack of operational awareness couldn’t be more apparent.

airtran737 wrote:

flee wrote:

hongkongflyer wrote:

current 330 has a big problem of not having a leveled cabin on the ground.

Not a big problem as the cargo deck will be equipped with motorised equipment to move the cargo loads into place.

Clearly you have never tried to push a 10,000 lb pallet that is improperly built and won’t move. Your lack of operational awareness couldn’t be more apparent.

If we talk about the not level floor, that are the A330 P2F only. As the A300 and A310 also have a nose down attitude and 200 of the had been converted to freighters, I assume that the nose down attitude, at least for certain use, can not be to big a problem.

The A330 P2F has powered floors and the A330F is level.

mjoelnir wrote:

We do not know if Airbus will offer a A330Fneo or keep offering the A330Fceo.

The OP seems to think there will be - thus the premise of this thread....

Spacepope wrote:

itchief wrote:

The problem with your prediction is that the A330neo will not fit into the same space that the DC-10/MD-11/767F will fit into. The 767 has a wing span of 47.5m. That is a big reason that the A330F(60m) is a slow seller and a A330neo(64m) will have an even tougher time with the fit. Airport ramp space is not cheap and it is not easy to add.

And here is the correct answer. The wingspan of the A330 is a huge issue for freight operators. That’s why no new A330Fs have been ordered in years, and the conversion program is operating at a mere trickle, especially when compared to the output of the 767 P2F program.

The 787 on the other hand was designed from the beginning with a freighter conversion program in mind. I’d expect that to happen well before any other Airbus widebody conversion program is launched. Fleet leaders are still under 30000 hours though, so that might be a few more years.

Would a 787 freighter be exempted from the huge wingspan issue for freight operators?

FrenchPotatoEye wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

We do not know if Airbus will offer a A330Fneo or keep offering the A330Fceo.

The OP seems to think there will be - thus the premise of this thread....

Yes we are speculating, Airbus has not made any declaration about a A330neo freighter and/or ending the A330F.

It would have been more interesting if you would have answered my speculation about a possible A330neo, instead of boringly trying to correct one of my sentences just stating a fact.

keesje wrote:

Spacepope wrote:

itchief wrote:

The problem with your prediction is that the A330neo will not fit into the same space that the DC-10/MD-11/767F will fit into. The 767 has a wing span of 47.5m. That is a big reason that the A330F(60m) is a slow seller and a A330neo(64m) will have an even tougher time with the fit. Airport ramp space is not cheap and it is not easy to add.

And here is the correct answer. The wingspan of the A330 is a huge issue for freight operators. That’s why no new A330Fs have been ordered in years, and the conversion program is operating at a mere trickle, especially when compared to the output of the 767 P2F program.

The 787 on the other hand was designed from the beginning with a freighter conversion program in mind. I’d expect that to happen well before any other Airbus widebody conversion program is launched. Fleet leaders are still under 30000 hours though, so that might be a few more years.

Would a 787 freighter be exempted from the huge wingspan issue for freight operators?

Yes of course, it is a Boeing.

mjoelnir wrote:

keesje wrote:

Spacepope wrote:

And here is the correct answer. The wingspan of the A330 is a huge issue for freight operators. That’s why no new A330Fs have been ordered in years, and the conversion program is operating at a mere trickle, especially when compared to the output of the 767 P2F program.

The 787 on the other hand was designed from the beginning with a freighter conversion program in mind. I’d expect that to happen well before any other Airbus widebody conversion program is launched. Fleet leaders are still under 30000 hours though, so that might be a few more years.

Would a 787 freighter be exempted from the huge wingspan issue for freight operators?

Yes of course, it is a Boeing.

New build A330Fs currently don’t have the payload/range to justify the ramp space they eat up.

P2Fs, are cheap and especially efficient enough (A333P2Fs) to make it less of an issue.

kitplane01 wrote:

I can think of several nations that might want [...] : Brazil.

We couldn't even buy some KC-767s! The ones being converted at Bedek were cancelled and we ended up with a single leased 767(FAB2900) which isn't a tanker, is only a troop transport plane. We are broke!!! hahaha

mjoelnir wrote:

OEW 120t instead of 109T.
Payload both 69t
Fuel 62t instead of 55t and that at 10% lower fuel burn would mean about 5000nm instead of 4000nm range with the same payload. That is the range offered by the 777F, 4970nm, at full payload.

And here's the real meat. The 777f is hauling 103t to that 5000nm range, rather than 69t. The ton-mile efficiency argument falls down a bit when you need to run 1.5 A330neoF to lift the sameamount of payload the same distance.

As a new build I only give a Freighter based on A350 a Chance. That would address the 'Between the chairs' issue I also see.

So as a Tuesday Airbus armchair CEO, my freighter proposal is:
1) Develop an A350 based freighter (A350-900 or 1000)
2) Rely on an A330 P2F Program.
3) Forget the A330F NEO as a new Version.
4) Study to offer an A321F based on the upcoming A321XLR (homework to Airbus)

Flyglobal,
,(on the way to Seattle after drop of message)

mjoelnir wrote:

FrenchPotatoEye wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

We do not know if Airbus will offer a A330Fneo or keep offering the A330Fceo.

The OP seems to think there will be - thus the premise of this thread....

Yes we are speculating, Airbus has not made any declaration about a A330neo freighter and/or ending the A330F.

It would have been more interesting if you would have answered my speculation about a possible A330neo, instead of boringly trying to correct one of my sentences just stating a fact.

I didn't see the need to answer since its all hypothetical.

But as has been mentioned by the earlier poster - the 777F is hauling a lot more then the 69t you afforded it. 100t's or more...i doubt any A330neoF could match that w/out sacrificing range.

Airbus' best bet, is a freighter around the A350-900.

Spacepope wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

OEW 120t instead of 109T.
Payload both 69t
Fuel 62t instead of 55t and that at 10% lower fuel burn would mean about 5000nm instead of 4000nm range with the same payload. That is the range offered by the 777F, 4970nm, at full payload.

And here's the real meat. The 777f is hauling 103t to that 5000nm range, rather than 69t. The ton-mile efficiency argument falls down a bit when you need to run 1.5 A330neoF to lift the sameamount of payload the same distance.

Yes, targeting the 777F with a A338F is pointless. Boeing would just release the 777XF and Airbus is back to square one. The A330neoF just needs reliable TATL range (ie more than BOS-Ireland) with A decent payload to have a little more success.

Polot wrote:

Spacepope wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

OEW 120t instead of 109T.
Payload both 69t
Fuel 62t instead of 55t and that at 10% lower fuel burn would mean about 5000nm instead of 4000nm range with the same payload. That is the range offered by the 777F, 4970nm, at full payload.

And here's the real meat. The 777f is hauling 103t to that 5000nm range, rather than 69t. The ton-mile efficiency argument falls down a bit when you need to run 1.5 A330neoF to lift the sameamount of payload the same distance.

Yes, targeting the 777F with a A338F is pointless. Boeing would just release the 777XF and Airbus is back to square one. The A330neoF just needs reliable TATL range (ie more than BOS-Ireland) with A decent payload to have a little more success.

Concur. If you look at the routes needing this type of freighter, it needs 4,300nm+ of range with full payload. That means enough MTOW to activate the center tank (with full payload).

If Airbus does that, I expect 200 to sell. If they do not achieve at least that range, I only expect sales of about 50.

Lightsaber

Spacepope wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

OEW 120t instead of 109T.
Payload both 69t
Fuel 62t instead of 55t and that at 10% lower fuel burn would mean about 5000nm instead of 4000nm range with the same payload. That is the range offered by the 777F, 4970nm, at full payload.

And here's the real meat. The 777f is hauling 103t to that 5000nm range, rather than 69t. The ton-mile efficiency argument falls down a bit when you need to run 1.5 A330neoF to lift the sameamount of payload the same distance.

So what? Does freight come in neat 103t batches only? What if you have to move 60t or 130t? One can drive the nonsense just so far. Everything about the capabilities regarding a A330Fneo that would exclude that bird from being a freighter, applies in the same way to a possible 787F. And how do A300 and 767 function if they can not take 103t.
The vast majority of the freighters in the world are frames smaller than the A330.

Freighters are not sold in the same numbers as passenger models, excluding the 747-8 where the passenger model is a flop. The 777F has been delivered 147 times with about 50 on order. All talk about a P2F has been talk only, nothing happening. The 777F has it's first delivered in 2009. Deliveries have been about 10 a year the last years. The good sales the last years IMO are because of very low end of line prices at Boeing.

Yes there have been only 38 A330F sold and only 4 are now on order, but the P2F conversions have started with 2 A330-200P2F and 2 A330-300P2F in operation and a few on the way. DHL ordered 8 A330-300P2F with 10 options. 2 are delivered. So there seems to be a market for a freighter of this size, even if the newly build ones seems to be to expensive.
The two first A330-300P2F are operated by Air Hongkong for DHL
DHL seems to like the A330F, they took also the 5 from Etihad. Those are operated by EAT Leibzig.

The two A330-200P2F are in use at Egypt Air Cargo.

EFW is planing to convert about 10 A330 a year, as they have been in P2F for quite a while, about 200 A300/310 converted, I assume they have talked to their customers.

The freighter market is dominated with cheap converted aircraft doing fuel stops to move more.

A new aircraft has to be sold competitively for that same market.



I think Airbus and Boeing tried to stay out a bit, while they were able to use their slots for passenger jets.

mjoelnir wrote:

So what? Does freight come in neat 103t batches only? What if you have to move 60t or 130t? One can drive the nonsense just so far. Everything about the capabilities regarding a A330Fneo that would exclude that bird from being a freighter, applies in the same way to a possible 787F. And how do A300 and 767 function if they can not take 103t.
The vast majority of the freighters in the world are frames smaller than the A330.

You realize this is the same site where the basement dwellers will claim that an aircraft with 5000nm range being flown on a 4950nm sector is vastly overbuilt and inefficient so clearly must be replaced with a new generation i the norm, right?

The 777F is coming online as we've seen the extinction of the 747 Classic freighters. it's not surprising that they're being ordered and operated as direct replacements. There's a big squeeze on the aftermarket CF6 market (and to a lesser extent the PW4000) so older 744Fs are being parked/not overhauled/reactivated and probably never will as there is nothing out there to hang under their wings. On the other end, the 767Fslots in nicely capacity wise for the older L-1011/DC-10/MD/11/A300/A310 infrastructure at cargo hubs. Though the A330f (which would be the target to replace these on the lower end) has comparable capacity, it cannot be in 2 places at once, and to have replacements to run the stuff where it needs to go when it needs to get there, you are looking at having to expand airport infrastructure on a footprint that can be measured in square kilometers.

With the way the freight industry is run today, it's pretty much a square peg in a world full of round holes.

mjoelnir wrote:

Spacepope wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

OEW 120t instead of 109T.
Payload both 69t
Fuel 62t instead of 55t and that at 10% lower fuel burn would mean about 5000nm instead of 4000nm range with the same payload. That is the range offered by the 777F, 4970nm, at full payload.

And here's the real meat. The 777f is hauling 103t to that 5000nm range, rather than 69t. The ton-mile efficiency argument falls down a bit when you need to run 1.5 A330neoF to lift the sameamount of payload the same distance.

So what? Does freight come in neat 103t batches only? What if you have to move 60t or 130t? One can drive the nonsense just so far. Everything about the capabilities regarding a A330Fneo that would exclude that bird from being a freighter, applies in the same way to a possible 787F. And how do A300 and 767 function if they can not take 103t.
The vast majority of the freighters in the world are frames smaller than the A330.

Freighters are not sold in the same numbers as passenger models, excluding the 747-8 where the passenger model is a flop. The 777F has been delivered 147 times with about 50 on order. All talk about a P2F has been talk only, nothing happening. The 777F has it's first delivered in 2009. Deliveries have been about 10 a year the last years. The good sales the last years IMO are because of very low end of line prices at Boeing.

Yes there have been only 38 A330F sold and only 4 are now on order, but the P2F conversions have started with 2 A330-200P2F and 2 A330-300P2F in operation and a few on the way. DHL ordered 8 A330-300P2F with 10 options. 2 are delivered. So there seems to be a market for a freighter of this size, even if the newly build ones seems to be to expensive.
The two first A330-300P2F are operated by Air Hongkong for DHL
DHL seems to like the A330F, they took also the 5 from Etihad. Those are operated by EAT Leibzig.

The two A330-200P2F are in use at Egypt Air Cargo.

EFW is planing to convert about 10 A330 a year, as they have been in P2F for quite a while, about 200 A300/310 converted, I assume they have talked to their customers.

Long haul freight is fundamentally different than long haul passenger because of the whole boxes don’t mind stops thing. The cargo airlines prefer to consolidate as much freight (using short haul/regional freighters) into as few long haul routes as possible, and try to maximize the amount of freight they are using on that (with as large of aircraft as possible). Remember unlike passenger traffic where air travel is the best way to move people long distances, transporting cargo by air rather than ground/sea is always less efficient, so cargo airlines do as much as possible to make it as efficient as possible which means consolidate consolidate consolidate. Having less dense long haul routes only works if there is an appreciable time advantage versus just routing through the regional cargo hub and a time sensitive need (versus just transporting by ground/sea).

The A330F will never be a direct 777F competitor, Airbus needs to do a A350F for that. What a new build A330F needs is a clear niche where operators can say wow, this is clearly better in this role that ABC can’t do but XYZ is overkill, as currently it doesn’t really have one (mostly as a result of the reasoning behind the development of the A330F in the first place). The current A330F doesn’t have enough payload/range to separate it from the 763F (which can do like 90% of what the A330F can while being cheaper and taking up less room). That doesn’t mean it needs to match the 777F range, but it needs enough to be more than a regional freighter.

Polot wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

Spacepope wrote:

And here's the real meat. The 777f is hauling 103t to that 5000nm range, rather than 69t. The ton-mile efficiency argument falls down a bit when you need to run 1.5 A330neoF to lift the sameamount of payload the same distance.

So what? Does freight come in neat 103t batches only? What if you have to move 60t or 130t? One can drive the nonsense just so far. Everything about the capabilities regarding a A330Fneo that would exclude that bird from being a freighter, applies in the same way to a possible 787F. And how do A300 and 767 function if they can not take 103t.
The vast majority of the freighters in the world are frames smaller than the A330.

Freighters are not sold in the same numbers as passenger models, excluding the 747-8 where the passenger model is a flop. The 777F has been delivered 147 times with about 50 on order. All talk about a P2F has been talk only, nothing happening. The 777F has it's first delivered in 2009. Deliveries have been about 10 a year the last years. The good sales the last years IMO are because of very low end of line prices at Boeing.

Yes there have been only 38 A330F sold and only 4 are now on order, but the P2F conversions have started with 2 A330-200P2F and 2 A330-300P2F in operation and a few on the way. DHL ordered 8 A330-300P2F with 10 options. 2 are delivered. So there seems to be a market for a freighter of this size, even if the newly build ones seems to be to expensive.
The two first A330-300P2F are operated by Air Hongkong for DHL
DHL seems to like the A330F, they took also the 5 from Etihad. Those are operated by EAT Leibzig.

The two A330-200P2F are in use at Egypt Air Cargo.

EFW is planing to convert about 10 A330 a year, as they have been in P2F for quite a while, about 200 A300/310 converted, I assume they have talked to their customers.

Long haul freight is fundamentally different than long haul passenger because of the whole boxes don’t mind stops thing. The cargo airlines prefer to consolidate as much freight (using short haul/regional freighters) into as few long haul routes as possible, and try to maximize the amount of freight they are using on that (with as large of aircraft as possible). Remember unlike passenger traffic where air travel is the best way to move people long distances, transporting cargo by air rather than ground/sea is always less efficient, so cargo airlines do as much as possible to make it as efficient as possible which means consolidate consolidate consolidate. Having less dense long haul routes only works if there is an appreciable time advantage versus just routing through the regional cargo hub and a time sensitive need (versus just transporting by ground/sea).

The A330F will never be a direct 777F competitor, Airbus needs to do a A350F for that. What a new build A330F needs is a clear niche where operators can say wow, this is clearly better in this role that ABC can’t do but XYZ is overkill, as currently it doesn’t really have one (mostly as a result of the reasoning behind the development of the A330F in the first place). The current A330F doesn’t have enough payload/range to separate it from the 763F (which can do like 90% of what the A330F can while being cheaper and taking up less room). That doesn’t mean it needs to match the 777F range, but it needs enough to be more than a regional freighter.

Let us see you bringing the same arguments regarding a 787 freighter.

The MD-11F, used as a long range freighter, has the same range as the A330F, both at max payload.
The 767F does 3225nm with 54t. At max payload the 767F has 80% of the range and 78% of the payload of the A330F. So you should reevaluate your 90% or look at your math.

The A330P2F conversion will be running the next years and we will see quite a few of them. Having more A330 freighters in the market will also help sales of the new build ones.

mjoelnir wrote:

Polot wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

So what? Does freight come in neat 103t batches only? What if you have to move 60t or 130t? One can drive the nonsense just so far. Everything about the capabilities regarding a A330Fneo that would exclude that bird from being a freighter, applies in the same way to a possible 787F. And how do A300 and 767 function if they can not take 103t.
The vast majority of the freighters in the world are frames smaller than the A330.

Freighters are not sold in the same numbers as passenger models, excluding the 747-8 where the passenger model is a flop. The 777F has been delivered 147 times with about 50 on order. All talk about a P2F has been talk only, nothing happening. The 777F has it's first delivered in 2009. Deliveries have been about 10 a year the last years. The good sales the last years IMO are because of very low end of line prices at Boeing.

Yes there have been only 38 A330F sold and only 4 are now on order, but the P2F conversions have started with 2 A330-200P2F and 2 A330-300P2F in operation and a few on the way. DHL ordered 8 A330-300P2F with 10 options. 2 are delivered. So there seems to be a market for a freighter of this size, even if the newly build ones seems to be to expensive.
The two first A330-300P2F are operated by Air Hongkong for DHL
DHL seems to like the A330F, they took also the 5 from Etihad. Those are operated by EAT Leibzig.

The two A330-200P2F are in use at Egypt Air Cargo.

EFW is planing to convert about 10 A330 a year, as they have been in P2F for quite a while, about 200 A300/310 converted, I assume they have talked to their customers.

Long haul freight is fundamentally different than long haul passenger because of the whole boxes don’t mind stops thing. The cargo airlines prefer to consolidate as much freight (using short haul/regional freighters) into as few long haul routes as possible, and try to maximize the amount of freight they are using on that (with as large of aircraft as possible). Remember unlike passenger traffic where air travel is the best way to move people long distances, transporting cargo by air rather than ground/sea is always less efficient, so cargo airlines do as much as possible to make it as efficient as possible which means consolidate consolidate consolidate. Having less dense long haul routes only works if there is an appreciable time advantage versus just routing through the regional cargo hub and a time sensitive need (versus just transporting by ground/sea).

The A330F will never be a direct 777F competitor, Airbus needs to do a A350F for that. What a new build A330F needs is a clear niche where operators can say wow, this is clearly better in this role that ABC can’t do but XYZ is overkill, as currently it doesn’t really have one (mostly as a result of the reasoning behind the development of the A330F in the first place). The current A330F doesn’t have enough payload/range to separate it from the 763F (which can do like 90% of what the A330F can while being cheaper and taking up less room). That doesn’t mean it needs to match the 777F range, but it needs enough to be more than a regional freighter.

Let us see you bringing the same arguments regarding a 787 freighter.

The MD-11F, used as a long range freighter, has the same range as the A330F, both at max payload.
The 767F does 3225nm with 54t. At max payload the 767F has 80% of the range and 78% of the payload of the A330F. So you should reevaluate your 90% or look at your math.

The A330P2F conversion will be running the next years and we will see quite a few of them. Having more A330 freighters in the market will also help sales of the new build ones.

Yet the market, clearly isn't buying it. The A330P2F program is currently garnering the success rate of the L-1011F. And you completely ignore the major wingspan handicap. The A330P2F is clearly marketed as a regional freighter, and the NEO isn't going to change that.

mjoelnir wrote:

Polot wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

So what? Does freight come in neat 103t batches only? What if you have to move 60t or 130t? One can drive the nonsense just so far. Everything about the capabilities regarding a A330Fneo that would exclude that bird from being a freighter, applies in the same way to a possible 787F. And how do A300 and 767 function if they can not take 103t.
The vast majority of the freighters in the world are frames smaller than the A330.

Freighters are not sold in the same numbers as passenger models, excluding the 747-8 where the passenger model is a flop. The 777F has been delivered 147 times with about 50 on order. All talk about a P2F has been talk only, nothing happening. The 777F has it's first delivered in 2009. Deliveries have been about 10 a year the last years. The good sales the last years IMO are because of very low end of line prices at Boeing.

Yes there have been only 38 A330F sold and only 4 are now on order, but the P2F conversions have started with 2 A330-200P2F and 2 A330-300P2F in operation and a few on the way. DHL ordered 8 A330-300P2F with 10 options. 2 are delivered. So there seems to be a market for a freighter of this size, even if the newly build ones seems to be to expensive.
The two first A330-300P2F are operated by Air Hongkong for DHL
DHL seems to like the A330F, they took also the 5 from Etihad. Those are operated by EAT Leibzig.

The two A330-200P2F are in use at Egypt Air Cargo.

EFW is planing to convert about 10 A330 a year, as they have been in P2F for quite a while, about 200 A300/310 converted, I assume they have talked to their customers.

Long haul freight is fundamentally different than long haul passenger because of the whole boxes don’t mind stops thing. The cargo airlines prefer to consolidate as much freight (using short haul/regional freighters) into as few long haul routes as possible, and try to maximize the amount of freight they are using on that (with as large of aircraft as possible). Remember unlike passenger traffic where air travel is the best way to move people long distances, transporting cargo by air rather than ground/sea is always less efficient, so cargo airlines do as much as possible to make it as efficient as possible which means consolidate consolidate consolidate. Having less dense long haul routes only works if there is an appreciable time advantage versus just routing through the regional cargo hub and a time sensitive need (versus just transporting by ground/sea).

The A330F will never be a direct 777F competitor, Airbus needs to do a A350F for that. What a new build A330F needs is a clear niche where operators can say wow, this is clearly better in this role that ABC can’t do but XYZ is overkill, as currently it doesn’t really have one (mostly as a result of the reasoning behind the development of the A330F in the first place). The current A330F doesn’t have enough payload/range to separate it from the 763F (which can do like 90% of what the A330F can while being cheaper and taking up less room). That doesn’t mean it needs to match the 777F range, but it needs enough to be more than a regional freighter.

Let us see you bringing the same arguments regarding a 787 freighter.

The MD-11F, used as a long range freighter, has the same range as the A330F, both at max payload.
The 767F does 3225nm with 54t. At max payload the 767F has 80% of the range and 78% of the payload of the A330F. So you should reevaluate your 90% or look at your math.

The A330P2F conversion will be running the next years and we will see quite a few of them. Having more A330 freighters in the market will also help sales of the new build ones.

Well I never mentioned the 787. I’m not bringing any argument towards a 787F because I don’t have the slightest clue what its specs will be like. I’m talking about aircraft that exist now and what could be done to make them better and give them a bigger market, I never said it is impossible for Airbus to achieve success with a A330neoF.

The A330F has the same range as the MD-11F, but its payload is ~20t less. So if you want to replace a MD-11F better hope don’t need that 20t (and extra volume). If you want to fly further, well you can always payload restrict a MD-11 (Freighters, just like pax aircraft, are not always flying at max payload) and fly further while still carrying more than the A330F (at A330F’s max payload a MD-11 can fly ~4700nm, a little over 1000nm than a max payload A330 or MD-11F). The A330F, being smaller, needs to be able to lift a heavy load further than a fully laden larger aircraft to be attractive for long range cargo purposes. Since they are not the same size the “well the A330 is lighter and more fuel efficient” argument is weaker, because yes the A330F is lighter and more fuel efficient but also is leaving revenue cargo back on the ramp. A A330neoF will never outcompete a 777(X)F for long range freight purposes, that’s what an eventual A350F (proposed at XWB program launch) is for. As I said it needs to find another niche.

And 90% or 80% with the 767 it doesn’t matter, the point is they are too close and the A330F’s extra range over the 767 is not sufficient enough to open up enough new routes for a smaller freighter.

lightsaber wrote:

Polot wrote:

Spacepope wrote:

And here's the real meat. The 777f is hauling 103t to that 5000nm range, rather than 69t. The ton-mile efficiency argument falls down a bit when you need to run 1.5 A330neoF to lift the sameamount of payload the same distance.

Yes, targeting the 777F with a A338F is pointless. Boeing would just release the 777XF and Airbus is back to square one. The A330neoF just needs reliable TATL range (ie more than BOS-Ireland) with A decent payload to have a little more success.

Concur. If you look at the routes needing this type of freighter, it needs 4,300nm+ of range with full payload. That means enough MTOW to activate the center tank (with full payload).

If Airbus does that, I expect 200 to sell. If they do not achieve at least that range, I only expect sales of about 50.

Lightsaber

In the interest of understanding and gathering data; what is the basis for your market hypothesis? Who will be the customers?

Polot wrote:

The current A330F doesn’t have enough payload/range to separate it from the 763F (which can do like 90% of what the A330F can while being cheaper and taking up less room). That doesn’t mean it needs to match the 777F range, but it needs enough to be more than a regional freighter.

mjoelnir wrote:

...1) The MD-11F, used as a long range freighter, has the same range as the A330F, both at max payload.
2) The 767F does 3225nm with 54t. At max payload the 767F has 80% of the range and 78% of the payload of the A330F....
3) The A330P2F conversion will be running the next years and we will see quite a few of them. Having more A330 freighters in the market will also help sales of the new build ones.

1). Hypothesis: as the MD11s age there is a shift toward more regional work as FX acquires 777Fs and UPS aquires 748Fs (combined they operate just shy of 80% of the variant)
2). In keeping with the theme of being accurate; the 767 has ~90% of the volume and ~80% of the range. Fred Smith, a volume maximizing operator, is quoted as saying that the A330 is to much airplane.
3). logical

mjoelnir wrote:

... or a A330-900F with
OEW 125t, Payload 75t and range 4000nm for more volume.
All numbers are guesses based on the OEW differences of the A330-200 and A330-300 to the A330F and the estimated OEW of the A330-900 and A330-800.

Fantastic that someone has introduced the A339F into a conversation. The current new-build market context, as Polot uses to support his points, is that the cargo airlines buy payload in the VLA class and volume in the WB class.
? Why is the concept of an A339F discounted in these lively debates? TATL range at Lightsaber's optimal 4300nm with a slight discount in payload, a differentiating 20%? increase in volume,
? Alternate wing., from an engineering perspective or/and a business perspective what are the obstacles to re-winging the A330neo for freight and regional? Advancing the concept of placing an MD11 wing on a A330neo?

Given that the A330's wing span is an issue, so far as freight carriers go, why wouldn't the freighter model of the 787 also be a problem for freight operators, given the difference between their wing spans is a mere 1 foot? As has been said here on a.net many times over, the airline and airfreight markets fluctuate, sometimes in good ways and sometimes in bad. What we expect won't happen can, and what we don't expect does. Might be best to wait and see. I suspect the future might, in fact, hold promise for the Boeing 787 freighter and a possible A330neo freighter too. The possibilities are what make being an aviation fan so fascinating.

Spacepope wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

OEW 120t instead of 109T.
Payload both 69t
Fuel 62t instead of 55t and that at 10% lower fuel burn would mean about 5000nm instead of 4000nm range with the same payload. That is the range offered by the 777F, 4970nm, at full payload.

And here's the real meat. The 777f is hauling 103t to that 5000nm range, rather than 69t. The ton-mile efficiency argument falls down a bit when you need to run 1.5 A330neoF to lift the sameamount of payload the same distance.

But increasingly the same arguments apply to freight as passengers - frequency and flexibility. The same justifications for multiple NB's versus a WB, and multiple WB's versus A380.

If you want to generate premium freight margins, frequency, frequency, frequency.

If you are busy consolidating 103t, you are a margin bottom feeder. Better to operate a couple of NB freighters, and drop some customers.

EBJ68 wrote:

Given that the A330's wing span is an issue, so far as freight carriers go, why wouldn't the freighter model of the 787 also be a problem for freight operators, given the difference between their wing spans is a mere 1 foot? As has been said here on a.net many times over, the airline and airfreight markets fluctuate, sometimes in good ways and sometimes in bad. What we expect won't happen can, and what we don't expect does. Might be best to wait and see. I suspect the future might, in fact, hold promise for the Boeing 787 freighter and a possible A330neo freighter too. The possibilities are what make being an aviation fan so fascinating.

As mentioned, it is not wingspan per se but what you get with that wingspan. The A330F as it is right now does not have the payload/range to justify its wingspan. It is more useful for a regional role but the 767 is good enough for that and takes up less space. The 777F takes up the same wingspan (although it is longer) but can fly much further than the A330, making it easier to justify the larger wingspan (and higher price). The A330P2F is more attractive because it is cheap, and the A333 especially is great as a regional package freighter, which minimizes the wingspan issue. A new A330F, even with discounts, is still not “cheap” for most cargo airlines.

If the 787F, if ever launched, has payload/range specs similar to the current A330F it too will be failure. But I doubt Boeing would launch the plane unless the 787F could easily do transatlantic with a full payload and possibly be able to advertise as doing shorter pacific flights (whether that second part would actually be realistic is another question). I also suspect they would base it on the larger 789 and not the smaller 788.

Remember the current A330F was launched in part so Airbus would have something to offer cargo airlines after the end of A300F production and the death of the A380F- it wasn’t launched because cargo airlines were beating at their door left and right demanding a A330F (although they were curious about its potential). Boeing, with the 787, can afford to probe the market more before offering the 787F as they will still have the 77[X?]F, and potentially 767F, 747F, and/or 797F on deck to pitch to cargo airlines.

smartplane wrote:

Spacepope wrote:

And here's the real meat. The 777f is hauling 103t to that 5000nm range, rather than 69t. The ton-mile efficiency argument falls down a bit when you need to run 1.5 A330neoF to lift the sameamount of payload the same distance.

But increasingly the same arguments apply to freight as passengers - frequency and flexibility. The same justifications for multiple NB's versus a WB, and multiple WB's versus A380.

If you want to generate premium freight margins, frequency, frequency, frequency.

If you are busy consolidating 103t, you are a margin bottom feeder. Better to operate a couple of NB freighters, and drop some customers.

A NB freighter is not flying across continents though. Your suggestion is diminishing the need for regional wide body freighters like the A300/767/some A330s, it doesn’t necessarily suggest a need for lower volume freighters for the long haul.

EBJ68 wrote:

Given that the A330's wing span is an issue, so far as freight carriers go, why wouldn't the freighter model of the 787 also be a problem for freight operators, given the difference between their wing spans is a mere 1 foot? As has been said here on a.net many times over, the airline and airfreight markets fluctuate, sometimes in good ways and sometimes in bad. What we expect won't happen can, and what we don't expect does. Might be best to wait and see. I suspect the future might, in fact, hold promise for the Boeing 787 freighter and a possible A330neo freighter too. The possibilities are what make being an aviation fan so fascinating.

One area I see a potential market niche for the potential B787F (or P2F) is long routes with medium heavy freight needs. That may reduce the number of times some freight is moved between aircraft. In such a case operators may be more open to using a wider wingspan than the older MD/767 aircraft. The 787 would fit into any place that can handle a 747 or 777; and I would expect that it would carry more cargo than the B767 and A330.

My guess is that we are at least 8 years away from any decisions on weather to actually develop a 787P2F or 787F. A lot can change in that time-frame. At least Boeing made the provisions for it so that it can be considered.

Have a great day,