Future WB Fleet Predictions

[Great Lakes Airship]

Is the A350 a suitable replacement for the 777 fleet upon retirement? Where would the A350 overlap with the 787 Routes and Operations?

[Aspiredtofly]

Is the A350 a suitable replacement for the 777 fleet upon retirement? Where would the A350 overlap with the 787 Routes and Operations?

The new 777X would also be a great fit

[rudder]

I think that next phase at AC will address several fleet issues.

I think there will be additions of A350 and 321NEO. Older 321’s will be replaced. 777-200 probably on its way out.

I also think AC will ask ACPA about moving some 330’s to Rouge. If consent is required, I know what the answer should be.

At some point ACPA will have to tell AC that the goal is 1 AOC. Paint the planes whatever colour you want, but a plane is a plane. Cargo. J class. Leisure configuration. Doesn’t matter. No more ‘mainline pilot - Rouge pilot’. 1 pay scale per fleet type. 1 set of work rules.

[WellThatAgedWell]

With the new regs for fatigue is there even any financial upside for AC to have Mainline and rouge crews?

[altiplano]

777X is too big. Even the 777s they have now, a lot of that capacity is moving is cargo. With a freighter fleet available now that calculation may change.

I think A350-1000 will be the largest replacement you may
see for the 777s, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's more 787s & 330s. Economics would make more sense rolling back number of fleet types.

If they decide 330 to the LCC they don't need ACPA permission, they do need to meet a certain number of mainline WB aircraft 787 or larger though.

The value in ML vs. LCC is division and whipsawing us with ourselves... they will do it over and over and we will give concession after concession until we stop letting them.

[sportingrifle]

Despite returning a couple of older -200's to the lessors, the 777 is staying at AC for the foreseeable future. It is a bit of a gas pig but we just signed long term leases on them at very favourable rates. The decision has been made not to buy the 350 at this time as it would really only be a 787 replacement. The issue is while both the 350 and 787 can fly a bunch of people a long way, neither can do it with a belly full of cargo. (On some routes the 787 has issues just getting itself there!) And the 767 freighters don't have the range. So with the increased emphasis on cargo, the "Triple" remains the only viable and profitable aircraft on a number of routes.

The future of the narrowbody fleet, specifically the 737...........whole other question.

[sportingrifle]

Despite returning a couple of older -200's to the lessors, the 777 is staying at AC for the foreseeable future. It is a bit of a gas pig but we just signed long term leases on them at very favourable rates. The decision has been made not to buy the 350 at this time as it would really only be a 787 replacement. The issue is while both the 350 and 787 can fly a bunch of people a long way, neither can do it with a belly full of cargo. (On some routes the 787 has issues just getting itself there!) And the 767 freighters don't have the range. So with the increased emphasis on cargo, the "Triple" remains the only viable and profitable aircraft on a number of routes. The 777-200 remains the preferred airframe for the ultra long haul flying - with the -300 you are hauling 30 tons of extra aluminum around and end up being payload restricted so you can't use the extra seats.

The future of the narrowbody fleet, specifically the 737...........whole other question.

[fish4life]

Despite returning a couple of older -200's to the lessors, the 777 is staying at AC for the foreseeable future. It is a bit of a gas pig but we just signed long term leases on them at very favourable rates. The decision has been made not to buy the 350 at this time as it would really only be a 787 replacement. The issue is while both the 350 and 787 can fly a bunch of people a long way, neither can do it with a belly full of cargo. (On some routes the 787 has issues just getting itself there!) And the 767 freighters don't have the range. So with the increased emphasis on cargo, the "Triple" remains the only viable and profitable aircraft on a number of routes. The 777-200 remains the preferred airframe for the ultra long haul flying - with the -300 you are hauling 30 tons of extra aluminum around and end up being payload restricted so you can't use the extra seats.

The future of the narrowbody fleet, specifically the 737...........whole other question.

If anything the Max grounding has proved to airline the danger of having one type of aircraft in a certain category. I think you will continue to see a few different wide bodies and narrow bodies so If something results in an aircraft being grounded you don’t lose a huge portion of your fleet

[altiplano]

Air Canada B787-9 3 class configuration 298 seats.

Air Canada B777-300ER 3 class configuration 400 seats.

Airbus A350-1000 "comfortably accommodates from 350 to 410 passengers in a standard three-class configuration," with a 56 ton higher MTOW than the 787-9.
https://aircraft.airbus.com/en/aircraft/a350/a350-1000

I don't think range is an issue for the 767 freighter, they can go loaded from YVR to Asia or YYZ/YUL to Western Europe without issue and tech stop as needed. Cargo nonstop isn't really a selling point.

[sportingrifle]

Australia, Hong Kong, and India are waaay past the 767’s economic range. The 777 was routinely hauling 300 pax and 30 tons of freight to those destinations.

The drive to 787’s and Max/NEO’s on medium and long range pax flights has actually reduced worldwide cargo capacity.

[twa22]

I don't think range is an issue for the 767 freighter, they can go loaded from YVR to Asia or YYZ/YUL to Western Europe without issue and tech stop as needed. Cargo nonstop isn't really a selling point.

The 767BCF definitely can't go loaded from YYZ-FRA (3435NM) as the max range with full payload is stated at 3120-3225NM

https://www.boeing.com/farnborough2014/ ... 3_2014.pdf

https://www.aerocontact.com/public/img/ ... 00-bcf.pdf

https://www.atlasair.com/wp-content/upl ... 012418.pdf

But as you stated, if cargo nonstop isn't a selling point and tech stops are common, then the 767 in theory is a perfect fit, at least for Europe and South America cargo ops... Asia on the other hand, even with tech stop in ICN, or even NRT, doesn't work with a loaded 767 from YVR

[sportingrifle]

Tech stops are terribly expensive. NRT landing fees are $10K, tires and brakes, crew, fuel, crew expenses, ground handling…..
They only make sense if you have a significant amount of cargo to both pick up and drop off while stopping.

This info is now a month old and everything changes but the short answer is the Triple is here for the long haul ( (figuratively and literally), but no 350’s.

[altiplano]

Australia, Hong Kong, and India are waaay past the 767’s economic range. The 777 was routinely hauling 300 pax and 30 tons of freight to those destinations.

The drive to 787’s and Max/NEO’s on medium and long range pax flights has actually reduced worldwide cargo capacity.

I agree that you aren't doing YVR-SYD direct on a fully loaded 767, but I think you need to rethink the general nature of world cargo ops. Take a look at a Fedex guy's line and you may be surprised. It certainly isn't worldwide direct...

The 787s were an increase in overall cargo capacity for us as they replaced 767s. Recall it's that increase in capacity that led to the justification for the ACPA-Cargo wet lease MOA in 2015.

In that wet lease arrangement they were operating B767s to Germany and Western Europe and were about to open a Japanese route before it was shot down. Clearly it's an aircraft capable of a broad range of missions and it's not expensive. And where needed tech stops, with pickup/drop off revenue likely are cheaper than a cargo 777... for now...

Anyway... 777s are here now for sure, but the question is: "what is the 777 replacement" and I don't think it's a 777X.

[Sharklasers]

Tech stops are terribly expensive. NRT landing fees are $10K, tires and brakes, crew, fuel, crew expenses, ground handling…..
They only make sense if you have a significant amount of cargo to both pick up and drop off while stopping.

This info is now a month old and everything changes but the short answer is the Triple is here for the long haul ( (figuratively and literally), but no 350’s.

Go take a look at Anchorage on flightaware and then call FedEx, UPS, Atlas, Kalitta, Cathay, China Airlines, Air China Cargo, Cargolux and Omni and tell those airlines that they are doing air cargo wrong because all those airlines have landed in ANC in the last 4 hours for tech stops.

[sportingrifle]

Sharklasers….my apologies, I was only trying to provide clarification on the original question with the answer that we were given directly by the fleet managers. What do I know, I am just a pilot that actually operates them and sees the operation first hand.
But given your widespread depth of knowledge of the air cargo market, especially as operated within a passenger airline, why do you give Jason Berry, the VP of Cargo at AC a call. I am sure he would be most pleased to hear your thoughts.

[altiplano]

Sharklasers….my apologies, I was only trying to provide clarification on the original question with the answer that we were given directly by the fleet managers. What do I know, I am just a pilot that actually operates them and sees the operation first hand.
But given your widespread depth of knowledge of the air cargo market, especially as operated within a passenger airline, why do you give Jason Berry, the VP of Cargo at AC a call. I am sure he would be most pleased to hear your thoughts.

LOL... a pilot that sees the operation first hand you say! My impression is... that's... like... most of us...

We all know we will have triples for now.

Beyond the triple what do you see?

Question is what is the replacement for when triples are retired.

[sportingrifle]

Altiplano….what I meant is that I am seeing the AC freight operation first hand. Lotsa differences with mixed pax/freight and even more so with the upperdeck freight routes, although those are about to end.

At this point there is no plan to replace the 777 with anything…they are working well and the lease rates are very favourable. As I said, the ability to carry 300 pax and 30 tonnes of freight a very long way together is a massive commercial advantage. A future replacement for the airplane will depend on future pax loads, routes, fuel price, and lease rates. Either the 777x or A350-1000 would probably be in the running. I would imagine that if cargo does well and outgrows the 767, down the road the 777-300 would be a viable candidate for freight conversion. The -200,s cannot be converted.