Something that came up in a thread in CivAv that surprised and mystified me. (Not that unusual.)

It appears that all 11 of the 767-300ERs that Condor received direct from Boeing have the 70" front right lower cargo door that was standard on the non-er 767-300 and 767-200, rather than the 134" door that is standard on the 767-300ER (and optional on the non-ER version).

Presumably, this was at the airline's request, but that leads me to two questions, for which I have no answer after an extensive search:

(1) WHY? This means that Condor intentionally ordered a non-standard asset that would necessarily have a reduced resale value down the line. It then acquired almost an equivalent number of standard 767-300ERs from other carriers, all of which have the standard door.

(2) Can anyone think of any other airline that ordered the -ER with the narrow cargo door? And, again, why?

Ultimately, this makes these aircraft non-desireable for cargo conversion, although that's hardly an issue that a purchaser would consider when ordering new-build frames.

Most likely answer is that Condor, being a leisure airline, weren't concerned about cargo and saved money by ordering it without the large cargo door.
LTU, formally a leisure airline, also ordered several 767-300ERs with the small forward cargo door.

The cargo on a cargo aircraft is for the most part is carried in LD's (cargo containers) on the main deck so really having a small door on the fwd baggage pit would be of no real hardship for an aircraft converted to cargo.

[quote="stratclub"]The cargo on a cargo aircraft is for the most part is carried in LD's (cargo containers) on the main deck so really having a small door on the fwd baggage pit would be of no real hardship for an aircraft converted to cargo.[/quote

And if the customer wanted a larger cargo
door it could be incorporated during the
conversion

stratclub wrote:

The cargo on a cargo aircraft is for the most part is carried in LD's (cargo containers) on the main deck so really having a small door on the fwd baggage pit would be of no real hardship for an aircraft converted to cargo.

One of the significant benefits of the 767-300ER freighter is the 4 88x125 containers that it can carry in the cargo hold due to the large cargo door, so your observation is a little off here.

Max Q wrote:

stratclub wrote:

The cargo on a cargo aircraft is for the most part is carried in LD's (cargo containers) on the main deck so really having a small door on the fwd baggage pit would be of no real hardship for an aircraft converted to cargo.[/quote

And if the customer wanted a larger cargo
door it could be incorporated during the
conversion

That's an interesting observation. I would have thought that it would require an additional STC and significant additional engineering -- i.e. big investment -- not worth it for 15 or fewer potential conversion frames.

ha763 wrote:

Most likely answer is that Condor, being a leisure airline, weren't concerned about cargo and saved money by ordering it without the large cargo door.
LTU, formally a leisure airline, also ordered several 767-300ERs with the small forward cargo door.

Thanks! Looks like the later-build LTU originals have the bigger door, and several of the original-LTU ones with the smaller cargo door have been broken up, rather than be converted.

I wonder whether one saves money by ordering something non-standard, and how much money one could possibly save with this modification. I wonder if it isn't some other reason, but it is interesting that both German charter airlines did this...

wjcandee wrote:

Max Q wrote:

stratclub wrote:

The cargo on a cargo aircraft is for the most part is carried in LD's (cargo containers) on the main deck so really having a small door on the fwd baggage pit would be of no real hardship for an aircraft converted to cargo.[/quote

And if the customer wanted a larger cargo
door it could be incorporated during the
conversion

That's an interesting observation. I would have thought that it would require an additional STC and significant additional engineering -- i.e. big investment -- not worth it for 15 or fewer potential conversion frames.

I would agree, The added revenue would not justify the cost. However, the LCD is already approved in the original TC for the aircraft so converting would be a matter of shopping for the engineering data that's already written by Boeing and conforming the mod to the appropriate data. Not cheap either but certainly cheaper than a "from scratch" STC.

stratclub wrote:

I would agree, The added revenue would not justify the cost. However, the LCD is already approved in the original TC for the aircraft so converting would be a matter of shopping for the engineering data that's already written by Boeing and conforming the mod to the appropriate data. Not cheap either but certainly cheaper than a "from scratch" STC.

Very interesting! Thank you. Still wondering if there's anything out there from the time that explains this somewhat-odd choice...

Does anyone have access to the sort of "options list" airlines have when they buy planes like this? Are there different wiring types or options of better/cheaper materials used in specific areas of the plane for example?

CCGPV wrote:

Does anyone have access to the sort of "options list" airlines have when they buy planes like this? Are there different wiring types or options of better/cheaper materials used in specific areas of the plane for example?

It's very doubtful data like that is released to the public. For good reason an "option list" is held very close by a customer because other carriers could use that list in ways that could effect competitiveness.

wjcandee wrote:

stratclub wrote:

I would agree, The added revenue would not justify the cost. However, the LCD is already approved in the original TC for the aircraft so converting would be a matter of shopping for the engineering data that's already written by Boeing and conforming the mod to the appropriate data. Not cheap either but certainly cheaper than a "from scratch" STC.

Very interesting! Thank you. Still wondering if there's anything out there from the time that explains this somewhat-odd choice...

If you got a hold of the cargo carriers Air Operators Certificate, you might find something that would explain how the carrier uses the lower cargo holds in their freight operation. I think AOC's are publicly accessible on the F.A.A's website. Otherwise, it would be just plain old ask the carrier.

The difference between the 70" door and the 134" door is what exactly...the 70" door allows you to load your choice of LD2 / LD8 containers but the 134" also allows you to carry PAG style 88x125 pallets?