angry tanker

AA, you bring up an interesting point.
With this last contract we could have gone to a single base pay scale for all the aircraft with the addition of the 757 and A380. The difference in pay could have been in the override for international and long haul. It will be interesting to see what happens in the future if we really go a 757/777 only Fleet. I don't see that happening, but what do I know, I am just a gear lever monkey...

AerisArmis

You're saying that even though the MTOGW stays the same, it'll carry less weight on the upper deck because the floor isn't strong enough? When you take out the lavs, seats, galleys, overhead bins and flight attendants, you can put less weight in cargo on the upper deck? Did this happen with the 767BCF? Splain why por favor?

Sniper

bolded for emphasis

Flightglobal
Boeing
I can't speak for the main deck loading specifically, but, it appears the main deck would have to carry more than it does in passenger configuration for these #'s to work. It looks to me like the heaviest 777-300 passenger configuration still is less payload than the 777-200 BCF. Maybe I'm not reading the charts right (not the first time).

XCRTANGO

The 777F is a totally different bird than a 777 conversion would be for the simple reason the 777F uses the 300ER wing.

The candidates for conversion are the older 200 models with the older wing. Less lift and less fuel.

It uses the LRs engines

Daniel Larusso

Welcome aboard! Seats A,B, and C are on your right and D,E, and F are on your left......

2005 Blues

"It's an entirely different kind of flying . . . altogether."

"It's an entirely different kind of flying."

solinator

Didn't Boeing stop production of the 757? Are the 757 you guys are talking about freighter conversions?

On a different note, I would think the 777 would replace the MD-11s, not the -10s... :/

OKLATEX

Yes they are P2Fs. Coming from everyone that hasn't put winglets on them. First preference were the airplanes with Rolls engines. I think we are going to start getting airplanes with Pratts late this year.

I hear the 767 will/won't happen, depends on the day. The size of can on it is the issue, as the 767 has a smaller cross section than the A300, but has a longer range than the A300. I vote for 767s for what it is worth.

I have also heard the rumor of 150 757s. Actually heard they were approved to buy more than the intial 90.

Mechanic in my crashpad says the 777 is what they hear the company wants, but the floor on the 200/200ER is a problem. I'll have to ask again what it is, but it is a bigger mod than planned, is the quick and dirty.

MD11Fr8Dog

Composite materials - too flexy for a cargo floor!

FedupFlex

[quote=OKLATEX;799324]I hear the 767 will/won't happen, depends on the day. The size of can on it is the issue, as the 767 has a smaller cross section than the A300, but has a longer range than the A300. I vote for 767s for what it is worth.

I have also heard the rumor of 150 757s. Actually heard they were approved to buy more than the intial 90.

quote]

Here's a "what if...?" FDX decides on 767's, think about the contractual issues with FDX's "Widebody"/"Narrowbody" rates! The B-757 rates at FDX pay at "narrowbody", but the 767 is considered a "widebody" throughout the industry (except at UPS). FDX has a growing population of pilots with a B-757/B767 Type Rating, so, for discussion purposes, how would we handle a hypothetical B-767 fleet under our current contract? Fence the 767 from the 757? Aircraft specific rates? Composite (UPS) rate?