WPvsMW
Topic Author
Posts: 1109
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2017 7:30 pm

Cargo capabilities determining pax a/c selection

Mon Apr 09, 2018 8:10 pm

Is the A332 vs. B764 competition the only (major) instance of better belly cargo capacity being the primary determinant (for at least one operator) in selecting one airframe over the other? IIRC, several operators with existing B763 fleets chose the A332, rather than the B764, for the A332's belly cargo capacity.
 
tealnz
Posts: 219
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: Cargo capabilities determining pax a/c selection

Sun Apr 15, 2018 12:50 am

Not quite the example you're maybe thinking of but a few a.netters were surprised that NZ didn't stick with the 787 for its 77E replacement programme. NZ management indicated it was a range/payload issue mainly for inland US routes and Sao Paulo. As we have seen with the ORD announcement NZ could have stuck with the 789 if they were prepared to accept lower-density layouts and (presumably) very light cargo loads westbound. They haven't elaborated on what sort of cargo capacity they wanted on ORD, NYC, GRU etc but from some of the comments we have seen on NZ threads it looks likely that the significantly higher pax/cargo capability of the A350 at longer ranges was decisive. But your point is maybe capacity rather than capability?
 
WPvsMW
Topic Author
Posts: 1109
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Cargo capabilities determining pax a/c selection

Sun Apr 15, 2018 4:33 am

Close enough... the premise being that cargo considerations were the deciding factor in selecting a type of a/c in a pax fleet.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 25479
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Cargo capabilities determining pax a/c selection

Sun Apr 15, 2018 11:34 pm

WPvsMW wrote:
Is the A332 vs. B764 competition the only (major) instance of better belly cargo capacity being the primary determinant (for at least one operator) in selecting one airframe over the other? IIRC, several operators with existing B763 fleets chose the A332, rather than the B764, for the A332's belly cargo capacity.


The A330-200 also had better range - an issue Boeing looked to address with the cancelled 767-400ERX.

As for belly cargo volume, the 787-8 offers two additional LD-3 positions compared to the A330-200 / A330-800 so perhaps that helped it win some RFPs...
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 2363
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

Re: Cargo capabilities determining pax a/c selection

Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:09 am

One of the main factors of NOT selecting the A388 is the very limited belly cargo capacity of this aircraft type, seen the size of aircraft.
The smaller B773ER is able to transport a lot more cargo (both space and weight), together with all the passenger luggage with 100% seats booked.
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

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

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

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

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

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

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

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos