A340 Freighter conversion?

[Torquelink]

It seems that there are conversion programmes under way or being planned for virtually every jet type except the A340-300. As the 343 is likely to be superseded by the A350, 787, 772ER etc in pax service and values are already in serious decline, it would seem to be a good candidate freight conversion. It has the same cross section as the A300 so I assume can load standard ULDs and ought to have the payload range to finally see of the remaining DC8s, 707s and maybe replace DC10Fs etc but, despite all this, I've never seen any reference to the possibility. Is there something about the A343 and/or its performance that precludes its success as a freighter?

:confused:

[poor southerner]

Harming the value of new stock

[jettison valve]

Torquelink,

I had a look into the same question a few years ago. The A343 is inferior to the A333 because of the add. operational empty weight (two additional pylons, centre landing gear installations being the obvious differences). Volume would be exactly the same, payload almost the same (about 64t, taking into account the loss of several percent OEW during conversion). Given those figures, I judge it highly unlikely that anyone would need a long-haul freighter (A340) with such "limited" payload capability; they´ll rather go for the A333.

Hope this makes sense to you,
J.V.

[Thunderball 2]

Interesting analysis, JV, and no doubt some truth in what you say PS, but with respect there is another factor in play at present which renders this discussion academic.

Demand for all the long-haul Airbus widebodies - A330-200/300, A340-200(!) through 600 - is currently vastly greater than supply. Hard to believe that in 2002 BMI parked one up for much of the year. Right now, thanks to the likes of Etihad, you just cannot get your hands on these aircraft in the aftermarket. Don't be fooled by any listings you may have seen which suggest otherwise; all A330/340s are snapped up as soon as they become available, and this situation will continue for some long time. Last Friday I heard of one carrier offering a $100k/month "lease premium" over market rate for a four year operating lease.

Okay, these market conditions do not last for ever, but talk of A350 etc is entirely academic in the real world and of no relevance to the balance of demand and supply for the current inventory of aircraft.

[jettison valve]

Thunderball,

Are you sure about the demand of A340-200s as you emphasized this type so strongly...!?
The A342 is a failed design (28 built to my knowledge), its range capability taken over by the 343 growth.
BTW: I spoke to a friend in AUA two weeks ago, and he said they´d like to sell their two short A340s - but nobody wants them. Sure, it´s a matter of price; but he sounded pretty desperate.

Cheers,
J.V.

[Thunderball 2]

JV

I guess my exclamation mark after A340-200 was confusing. Of course you're right - "a failed design" sums it up well. But my exclamation mark was to indicate surprise that there should be ANY demand for the type, rather than to emphasize the -200. Demand is weakest of all A330/340, but in fact when examples have become available recently, they have been taken up. BTW A345 may be difficult in years to come.....

However, none of this is in contradiction to your comments about people wanting to sell them but having no takers. The problem for them is that the book value of these aircraft will be way above what the market would pay, and they'll not be able to crystalize a massive write-off by selling them for what they'd get in the market. Same thing happened with A310-300. But operating lease rates of "failed designs" will often be closer to the debt service cost than the offer prices will be to the book values, so leasing will be the best bet. That having been said, most airlines won't dry lease. In any event, high book values will preclude sale for conversion as freighters, so we're back to where we started.

[Torquelink]

JV

Agree that the A343 OEW is higher than that of the A333 (although you missed 2 extra engines off your list!) but the MTOW is 42,000kg higher so, depending upon MZFW etc, I would have thought the A343 would have a useful range advantage.


Thunderball

A343 availability is tight at present (as it seems to be for virtually everything) but the A350/787 will hit the A343 harder than the A333 and values will fall faster and sooner as a consequence. Its already difficult to find anyone prepared to take asset risk on the A343 - in part because of the lack of a freighter conversion programme (unlike the 744, 767, 757 etc) - hence my original post.

[jettison valve]

Torquelink,

Okay, okay, you are right concerning the two engines... ;-)
I´ve had a look into my old paper: The two Trents on an A333 plus pylons weigh 16.044kg, four CFM56 engines plus pylons on the A340s weigh around 22.930kg (Revocery Manual data).

You are right about the range advantage. But: To exaggerate a bit, who wants to deliver a small parcel non-stop from LHR to SYD?
Analysis of all cargo networks, both traditional and express/integrator systems, show a certain relationship between payload capability and range. No one will dispatch a B747F between COS and DEN, and no one will use a B727F between MEM and NRT. But we have seen it the other way around.
Bottom line with respect to the AI long range busses: A333Fs would fit into this scenario, A343Fs suffer from the higher OEW - their range advantage does not help them.
If my memory serves me right, an A333F would burn 15% less fuel on a 3200nm mission (MZFW/MTOW mission) than an A343F.


Thunderball 2,

Interesting comments. Do you have lease rates at hand (current ones, all time highs/lows)?

Enjoying the discussion,
J.V.

[Torquelink]

J.V.

It would seem that you're right judging by the fact that there is no hint of a conversion programme for the A343. Of course, there isn't one for the A333 either but this is probably more to do with continuing pax demand and holding values.

I guess the one variable that might change the outcome of your analysis would be the value/lease rates of the respective aircraft. If pax demand continues to hold up values/lease rates of the A333 while the advent of the A350/787 cause values/lease rates of the A343 to collapse, the acquisition cost advantage of the A343 might outweigh the doc/operational advantages of the A333F. Interestingly however, at present, appraisers value the aircraft pretty much the same so don't appear to have factored in the A350/787 threat yet (either that or they think that the A350/787 will hit both types equally).

[Hunter58]

Is there a serious freighter conversion programme under way for any of the newer Airbus Wide-Bodies?

Well, if there is I doubt it will sell in great number for the following technical reasons:

- all the A330/340 series have a pronounced nose-down attitude on the ground. So in order to overcome this you need to redesign the NLG, which will add a lot to the conversion cost. Without, just forget to push the pallets up, or even worse, to break the pallets when they slide down.

- the A330/340 is optimized for passenger transport. The have a vilid freighter equivalent to a MD11/747 you would need to get the payoad i the region of 65t for an A330-200 (as example). The fuselage will simply not take that.

So, what do you end up with? An expensive conversion with a minimal load. Nah, not at this time and not for the longer term future.

[Thunderball 2]

JV

In terms of lease rates, about 2 years ago we had the extraordinary situation of an A330-200 which was costing the owner $920k per month (lease-purchase put in place at the late-90s peak) being offered at $450k for a 4-year dry lease....nice work if you can get it! A330-200 rates were in the mid-$400s when Eithad first went shopping, but they have long since left that area. Haven't heard any A330 operating lease numbers since August of last year, and then it was $670k/month for a -300.

Torquelink

Of course you're right about A350/B787 impact on a financiers view of any new metal, but in terms of the current values of the existing inventory these new-build planes still lie in the far future. How many years will it be before A350/B787s enter the operating lease market? Early lessor production will be spoken for. This market is driven now by what's already built or being built, not by the new types.

Hunter 58

Not so fast. The AirTanker people did a lot of work on the A330-200 freighter at one stage, and I believe it was clear from AI that this development was seen as being inevitable. I'm going back 2-3 years. Also, it may not be a 65 tonnes plane, but it would be low '60s, possibly 62 tonnes. There is public domain information on this - will try to find - but you can derive this payload reasonably easily by extrapolation of A300-600F. But someone reading this will know more.....

:ok:

[jettison valve]

Hunter58,

Nose down attitude is agreed. But it isn´t that bad. In fact, aft of FR58 (?) you have a kink in the floor structure on A310/A300Fs, and that doesn´t prevent cargo to be loaded in the back of the compartment.
You certainly will object that this kink will add to the nose down angle on A330s. Agreed. But, again from memory, this shouldn´t be a show-stopper thanks to PDUs, brakes etc.


The fuselage WILL take 60 odd tons payload on A330-300. It does it even today, if you look at the numbers in detail!

I understand from contacts in TLS that their engineering resources are verly limited at the moment (A380, A340-600 ISP plus growth programmes, A350, A320 and A300 successors), so that a production A330-300F is constantly postponed. But I am sure it´ll come!

Cheers,
J.V.

Thunderball 2: Thanks for the data! Amazing amount of money that we talk here... !

J.V.

[Torquelink]

Thunderball

A350/787 availability may well lie far in the future but it is already affecting the perception of long term risk associated with the A343 (it may already be affecting the A333 too - dunno). The issue isn't current market values which, as you say, are influenced by present demand (and holding up well for most mainstream types) but future value perceptions such that, if you are looking at structuring, say, an 8 year lease on a mid 90s A343 today, the question asked is what will the secondary market be for the asset at lease expiry? Because deals on so many other "mature" types e.g. 744 are sold on either continuing pax ops or conversion to freight, the A343 suffers because the latter option isn't available. I agree it's naive inasmuch as there may be a conversion programme launched in the interim and, anyway, a 16 year old A343 will compete with new gen equivalents on the basis of value alone, but the fact is that most investors won't touch it with an FV much above scrap. Mind you, if Hunter 58 is right maybe they're right too!

[Hunter58]

JV

maybe I shoudl clarify myself here. AI did use a A300 to simulate the nose down of any possible freighter derivative of the A330/340. The results were so desastrous (in engineering terms) that AI did use the last three years to come to a good idea of how to build a new NLG that would not require a moyor rework of the nose area and still allow them to offer the A330-200F (ok, they were also sidetracked by the development of another 'baby'). The kink is not the problem, the problem is that worst case the baby sits with a 3.8 degrees nose down. The video AI did during the tests is actually rather hillarious to watch...

Also AI is NOT looking into the A330-300F but into the A330-200F. The -300F was never a real option.


T2
You are right and wrong. The problem is the shear loads on the fuselage. Without reinforcement (which adds a lot to empt weight) you cannot have anything but very light pallets in the A330/340 fuses. AI would actually build the A330-200F with the technical fuse of the A340-600 to absorb the shear-loads and be able to offer a 65t freighter. Any other non OEM conversion would be limited to some 55t due to that.

You can't compare A300s with A330/340s. They may look the same, but in the detail they are not at all.

[jettison valve]

Hunter58,

I´d still would like to object, if I may:
- Handling cargo in the lower deck compartments of current pax A330/A340 with nose down attitude is not "desastrous", at least not that I know of. I suppose pallets and ULDs on the main deck may have more weight, ok. But does this really change the handling from feasible to desastrous???

- A delivery weighing report of a pax A330-300 quotes an OEW of 117.355kg and a pitch attitude of 1.37 degrees nose down. For comparison, the B747 Cargo Facility and Equipment Planning Manual cites a maximum nose up pitch angle of 1.1 degrees for an unstabilized airplane, if the freighter is unloaded/loaded with “little regard for airplane balance”.
I can see the difference - but is it really that critical...?!

Regards,
J.V.

[Hunter58]

JV

you may object as you want, but:

- the nose down has been identified by AI as THE major problem for offering the A330-200F. During the tests the persons pushing the pallets did actually have to jump away to safety and some locks were shed off in the process of the sliding of the pallet. The intended break pads were totally ineffective. Only the safety structure installed in front of the 9G net specifically for the event was able to hold the pallet. Not what you really want. Also MD pallets have that tendency to be double to triple as heavy as LD pallets. The test was run by AI due to a request by the CFG (Customer Focus Group) since none of the then present representatives was ready to accept the aircraft as such without further investigation in the matter. As we see the result was clear. You can handle some 1.5 degrees manually, but above that it starts to be difficult.

Also AI is ONLY talking about the A330-200 as the other fuselages are too long to be considered viable for a production freighter, lest for a conversion with usefull enough loads. It is not about total masses but really about the distribution of masses. The A330/340 family is built for running loads that are based on pallets and containers in the belly and a high density passenger load on the main. General Cargo was not considered during design.

So, should AI effectively start to market the A330-200F, then you will actually get a shortened A340-600 Tube with A330-200 wings and systems. The A340-600's tube is reinforced as much as the lower lobe skin is thinker than that of other A340's therefore, in the length of the A330 fuse being able to cope with the expected shear loads. In addition the freighter version of the A330-200 would have some local reinforcement in floor beams. Only with that are you able to get a halfway decent payload.

AI Passenger aircraft cannot be modified as simply as Boeing or MDD models. Either you have a very expensive reinfocing of the fuse (for which I doubt AI will give you design support; and which will cut into your payload) or you limit your payload which then means you take economical viability out of the aircraft.

[CR2]

The nose-down pitch will also make it problematical to balance properly (similar to a stretched DC8). You need to throw a lot of weight in the back, just where the cumulative load limits are the most restrictive.
I guess similarly to a -63, you'd need to put a stack of pallets in the back to fly it empty?

At a tangent, have Airbus given up? Considering the 777F will carry 95-100T Europe-HKG direct.

edit sp.

[Hunter58]

CR2

nope, they are still in. I understand they have privately started to offer the aircraft again, but with some ameliorations and early delivery positions for 3Q 2007. The A330-200F would be in the 60t class, the 777F in the 100t class. Range on the bus is expected around 4000NMs, target is to replace DC-10s.

[jettison valve]

Ok, I give up...
Looks like you know a lot more about AI long range conversions. Time will tell when AI delivers the first A333F, ehhh, A332F of course... ;-)

Anyway, it´s been a very interesting discussion!

J.V.